THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
K. B. Madhavan, S/o. K. G. Balakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
Sub Registrar, office of the Sub Registrar – Respondent
"CR"
1. The Federal Bank, a secured creditor in terms of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter, the "SARFAESI Act", exercised its rights under that Act as regards a secured debt, through its authorised officer, and the secured asset was sold to the petitioner and certificate of sale issued to him in terms of Rule 9 (6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, for short, the "Enforcement Rules". Is duty in the form of surcharge payable on that certificate of sale under Section 270 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, hereinafter, the "Municipality Act" and the Kerala Municipality (Assessment of Duty on Transfer of Property) Rules, 2003, for short, the "Duty Rules"?
2. Petitioner, the holder of the certificate of sale, contends that a conjoint reading of Section 270 (1) (ii) of the Municipality Act and the Duty Rules would show that a certificate of sale does not attract such duty and there is no power authorizing its levy and collection. The respondents contend that certificates of sales exempted in terms of the Duty Rules are only those granted to purchasers of properties sold by
Commissioner of I.T., Bombay City, Bombay v. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd.
State of Madras v. M/s. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (Madras) Ltd.
Sneh Enterprises v. Commr. of Customs
Madras Refineries Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue,Madras
A. V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala, AIR 1957 SC 657 Jugalkishore Saraf v. M/s. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.