9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of sale issued by a Tax Recovery Officer and the Court after considering the provisions of Section 89(4) held that a Tax Recovery Officer under the Income Tax Act would be a Revenue Officer and the certificate of sale issued by him is not compulsorily registrable. In B. ARVIND KUMAR VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS. [ 2007 (5) TMI 657 - SUPREME COURT ], 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 very same question arose before another Division Bench of this Court in THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND ORS. VERSUS KANAGALAKSHMI GANAGURU [ 2017 (8) TMI 1708 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] . 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. In view of the pronouncement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in ESJAYPEE IMPEX PVT. LTD. VERSUS ASST. GENERAL MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CANARA BANK [ 2021 (1) TMI 1308 - SUPREME COURT] , the law as it stands today is that an Authorised Officer, who conducts a sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld 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 has been filed by the respondents this being a strictly legal issue, the Writ Petition was heard on merits. 5. Mr. Sharath chandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a Sale Certificate issued by an Officer authorised by a Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, would be akin to a sale by a Revenue Officer which would fall within Section 89(4) of the Registration Act. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, registration of such document is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso 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. Countering the said submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader based on the judgment of the two Division Benches and the Full Bench of this Court, Mr. Sharath Chandran, learned counsel would submit that the judgments of the Division Bench and the Full Bench in The Inspector General of Registration v. Kanagalakshmi Ganaguru's case and Dr. R.. Thiagarajan v. Inspector General of Registration's case, stood over ruled by the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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." 13. A reading of Section 17(2)(xii) would show that a certificate of sale issued by a Civil or a Revenue Officer in evidence of a sale conducted by way of public auction is not compulsorily registrable. Section 89(4) imposes an obligation on the Revenue Officer, who conducts an auction sale to forward the certificate to the Registering Authority to enable him to file the same in Book-I maintained by him. Article 18 of the Stamp Act, deals with payment of duty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt 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, though such a sale certificate issued by a court or an officer authorized by the court, does not require registration. Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908 specifically provides that a certificate of sale granted to any purchaser of any property sold by a public auction by a civil or revenue officer does not fall under the category of non testamentary documents which require registration under sub-section (b) and (c) of Section 17(1) of the said Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adu 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 not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Division Bench which decided The Inspector General of Registration v. Kanagalakshmi Ganaguru. Noting the apparent conflict between the Inspector General of Registration v. K.K. Thirumurugan, reported in 2014 Mad HC, which had taken the view that Section 47-A could not be invoked in a sale conducted under the SARFAESI Act, since there has no question of intentional under valuation of the property at a public ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 The Inspector General of Registration v. Kanagalakshmi Ganaguru, and the judgment of the Full Bench in Dr. R.. Thiagarajan v. Inspector General of Registration's case. No doubt the Division Bench in The Inspector General of Registration v. Prakash Chand Jain, had followed the decision of the Full Bench in Dr. R.. Thiagarajan v. Inspector General of Registration's case. Unfortunately the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esjaypee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Municipal Areas) Act (32 of 2009). 27. Insofar as the registration charges are concerned, the State Government has fixed the registration charges at 1% under Section 78 of the Registration Act and the same has been published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, as required under Section 79 of the Registration Act. By G.O. Ms. No. 49 dated 08.06.2017, the following proviso was added to Article 1 of the table of the fees: "Provided further th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
