TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1504
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tering Officers have collected Stamp Duty at 7% and registration charges at 4% for each of the sale certificates. According to the petitioner, the collection of stamp duty under Article 23 of the Stamp Act, treating the sale certificate issued as a conveyance itself is erroneous and the respondents ought to have collected stamp duty at 5% under Article 18 of the Stamp Act. According to the petitioner, the sale certificate issued by the Authorised Officer under the SARFAESI Act would not amount to a conveyance as defined under Article 23 of the Stamp Act. It could at best be treated as a certificate of sale granted by a Revenue Officer which would fall within Article 18 of the Indian Stamp Act. 3. Upon discovery of the fact that excess amount has been collected, the petitioner made a representation on 30.07.2018 seeking refund of the excess stamp duty and registration charges paid to the tune of Rs. 19,72,760/-. Separate memos of calculation explaining, as to how, excess stamp duty and registration charges has been collected were also sent along with a said representation. Since there was no response, the petitioner has come up with the above Writ Petition. 4. Though no counter ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, would also not apply and thus a certificate of sale issued by an authorised officer of a Bank would only be a conveyance which is chargeable for duty under Article 23 of the Stamp Act and the Registration charges should be paid treating it as a conveyance. 8. The learned Special Government Pleader would also draw my attention to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Dr. R.. Thiagarajan v. Inspector General of Registration, reported in AIR 2019 Mad 274, she would also point out that the judgment of the Division Bench in The Inspector General of Registration v. Kanagalakshmi Ganaguru's case, referred to supra, has been approved by the Full Bench in Dr. R.. Thiagarajan v. Inspector General of Registration's case. She would further point out that in The Inspector General of Registration v. Prakash Chand Jain, a Division Bench of this court has followed the judgment of the Full Bench and held that the sale certificate issued by the Authorised Officer of the Bank is liable to stamp duty under Section 23 of the Stamp Act, and in the event of under valuation of the property, the Registering Officer is entitled to proceed under Section 47(A) of the Stamp Act. 9. Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opposed to the conclusions of the Division Bench in The Inspector General of Registration v. Kanagalakshmi Ganaguru's case and the Full Bench in Dr. R.. Thiagarajan v. Inspector General of Registration's case. 12. Let me now consider the provisions of the Registration Act and the Stamp Duty which would stand attracted in the case on hand. Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, reads as follows: "17. Documents of which registration is compulsory: (2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to--- (xii) any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue Officer." Section 89 (4) of the Registration Act, reads as follows: "89. Copies of certain orders, certificates and instruments to be sent to registering officers and filed.- (4) Every Revenue Officer granting a certificate of the sale to the purchaser of immovable property sold by public auction shall send a copy of the certificate to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the property comprised in the certificate is situate, and such officer shall file the copy in his Book No. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rules. This is to file the copy of the certificate of sale received by him from the T.R.O. in his Book No. 1." 15. In B. Arvind Kumar v. Govt. of India and others, reported in 2007 (5) SCC 745, the scope of Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act was considered and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a sale certificate is merely an evidence of title and it does not convey title. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the nature of the document namely a sale certificate observed as follows: "12. ....When a property is sold by public auction in pursuance of an order of the court and the bid is accepted and the sale is confirmed by the court in favour of the purchaser, the sale becomes absolute and the title vests in the purchaser. A sale certificate is issued to the purchaser only when the sale becomes absolute. The sale certificate is merely the evidence of such title. It is well settled that when an auction purchaser derives title on confirmation of sale in his favour, and a sale certificate is issued evidencing such sale and title, no further deed of transfer from the court is contemplated or required. In this case, the sale certificate itself was registered, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer. 18. In Pandian v. The Inspector General of Registration, reported in AIR 2016 Mad 81, this Court had held that a sale certificate issued by an Authorised Officer under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, does not amount to transfer of property and it is only a document evidencing factum of a statutory sale on the above conclusion, this Court held that there is no question of collection of surcharge under Section 116-A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipality Act 1920 or the Tamil Nadu Duty on Transfer of Property (In Municipal Areas) Act (32 of 2009). In doing so, this Court had followed the Judgment of the Single Judge in Dr. Meera Thinakaran v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors, and that of the Division Bench in K. Chidambara Manickam v. Shakeena & Ors, referred to supra. 19. The very same question arose before another Division Bench of this Court in The Inspector General of Registration v. Kanagalakshmi Ganaguru. This court had held that the authorised officer appointed by the Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, cannot be called a Civil or Revenue Court or Collector or Revenue Officer. However, the earlier decisions of this Court adverted to supra were n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer, Canara Bank, which in my considered opinion effectively sets at naught the judgement of the Full Bench of this Court. 22. The conclusion of the Full Bench in Dr. R.. Thiagarajan v. Inspector General of Registration's case that an authorised officer cannot be termed as a Civil or Revenue Officer and a certificate of sale issued by him under Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, needs to be compulsorily registered has been uprooted by the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 16 of Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, as a corollary, the judgment of the Division Bench in The Inspector General of Registration v. Kanagalakshmi Ganaguru, would also stand impliedly over ruled, in view of the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 23. The learned Special Government Pleader in her effort to sustain the view of the Division Bench in The Inspector General of Registration v. Kanagalakshmi Ganaguru, would submit that even as late as on 16.09.2021, a Division Bench of this Court in The Inspector General of Registration v. Prakash Chand Jain, has followed the judgment in Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Registration v. Kanagalakshmi Ganaguru, (Division Bench), Dr. R.. Thiagarajan v. Inspector General of Registration, (Full Bench) and The Inspector General of Registration v. Prakash Chand Jain, (Division Bench) are no longer good law, in view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank. 26. The next question that would arise is to the amount of stamp duty and registration charges payable, if such certificate is presented for registration. Article 18 of the Stamp Act, provides for Stamp Duty payable on a certificate of sale granted by a Civil or Revenue Court or Collector or other Revenue Officer. Clause (c) of Article 18 makes the duty payable for a conveyance would apply to a sale certificate also. Under Article 23 of the Stamp Act, the Stamp Duty payable on a sale is 5% as per G.O. Ms. No. 46-CT and All Department dated 27.03.2012. As already pointed out since the document would not be a conveyance there is no question of payment of any surcharge either under Section 116-A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipality Act 1920 or under the Tamil Nadu Duty on Transfer of Property (In....