SARFAESI sale certificates are not compulsorily registrable and prior excess stamp and registration collections must be refunded with interest.

A sale certificate issued by an authorised officer in a SARFAESI auction is not compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act and must instead be filed in Book No. 1 under Section 89(4); collection of stamp duty and higher registration charges as if it were a conveyance was therefore unjustified. The amendment introducing a filing fee under Article 4A operated only prospectively from 23.03.2023, so it did not apply to sale certificates already issued and presented before that date. The excess amounts collected on the earlier demands were refundable with interest, and the impugned orders were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a sale certificate issued in a public auction under the SARFAESI regime is compulsorily registrable or must be filed in Book No. 1 without insisting on stamp duty and higher registration charges. (ii) Whether the amendment introducing filing fee under Article 4A could affect the petitions or justify retention of excess amounts already collected.

Issue (i): Whether a sale certificate issued in a public auction under the SARFAESI regime is compulsorily registrable or must be filed in Book No. 1 without insisting on stamp duty and higher registration charges.

Analysis: The governing law was taken to be that a sale certificate issued by an authorised officer of a bank in a SARFAESI sale is to be treated as a certificate of sale from a revenue officer for the purposes of the Registration Act. Such a certificate is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908, and the registering authority is required to file the copy in Book No. 1 under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908. The earlier contrary line of authority was treated as no longer good law in view of the later Supreme Court ruling and the subsequent application of that ruling by this Court. The collection of stamp duty and registration fee as if the document were a conveyance was therefore not justified for the certificates in issue.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the petitioners. The sale certificates were required to be filed in Book No. 1 without insisting on the higher stamp duty and registration fee.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment introducing filing fee under Article 4A could affect the petitions or justify retention of excess amounts already collected.

Analysis: The amendment creating a filing fee under Article 4A of the fee table under Section 78 of the Registration Act, 1908 was held to operate prospectively from 23.03.2023. The sale certificates in these cases had been issued and presented, and the impugned demands or collections had arisen, before that cut-off date. The amendment was therefore not treated as altering the position in these cases. Since excess amounts had been collected in relation to the earlier demands, refund with interest was directed.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the petitioners. The amendment did not govern these transactions and the excess amount collected was refundable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, the impugned orders were set aside, the registering authorities were directed to file the sale certificates in Book No. 1, and the excess stamp duty or registration fee collected earlier was ordered to be refunded with interest.

Ratio Decidendi: A sale certificate issued by an authorised officer in a SARFAESI auction is not compulsorily registrable and must be filed in Book No. 1 under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908; any later fee amendment applies only prospectively and cannot validate prior excess collections.

---