POLYHOSE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NOS. 186 AND 187, POONAMALLEE HIGH ROAD, KILPAUK, CHENNAI Vs. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, NO. 100, SANTHOME HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner would state that in pursuant to an E-Auction sale notice issued under the provision of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) for selling the properties, which were mortgaged to the Syndicate Bank, the petitioner has participated in the auction and was declared as a successful bidder in respect of property, which was brought for sale. The bid made by the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 84,00,00,000.00 was accepted and on payment of entire sale consideration, the Syndicate Bank had issued a sale certificate confirming the sale on 12.03.2014. The petitioner has presented the said sale certificate dated 12.03.2014 for registration before the fifth respondent, who advised him to pay 8% stamp charges (7% + 1%) i.e., Rs. 6,72,00,000.00 and it was remitted under protest and the sale certificate was registered as Doc. No. 3902 of 2014. The petitioner after registration of the sale certificate, approached the fifth respondent for return of the registered document and he was informed that he has to pay 7% stamp duty on the guideline value/market value and not for the bid amount mentioned in the sale certificate. The petitioner was also further informed by the fifth respondent that to ascertain the market value of the property and survey of the property, the fifth respondent would be sending their officials. After survey of the property, the third respondent has issued the impugned order dated 16.06.2016, raising a demand for a sum of Rs. 3,92,71,614.00 being the deficit stamp duty payable.

(2.) It is the specific stand of the petitioner that the stamp duty payable is only 5% as per Art. 18 r/w Art. 23 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 and the stamp charges levied is only on the sale price mentioned in the sale certificate and the surcharge of 2% cannot be charged. It is also the stand of the petitioner that the further stamp duty payable is only based on the amount mentioned in the sale certificate and not on the guideline/market value. The petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.06.2016, raising a demand for a sum of Rs. 3,92,71,614.00, being the deficit stamp duty payable, has came forward to file this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Zaffarullah Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Articles 18 and 23 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 and would submit that the demand made by the third respondent, is perverse and unsustainable in law for the reason that the stand of the petitioner is supported by the judgments reported in 2014 (2) MLJ 678 [Y.K. Mohan Rao and Others Vs. Chief Revenue Controlling Authority] , 2015 (1) CTC 526 [The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai Vs. K.K. Thirumurugan] and 2016-2-L.W. 273 [P. Pandian Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai] and in the light of the ratio laid down in the said judgments, the registered sale certificate is to be returned to the petitioner and prays for appropriate orders.