1. "Whether surcharge, on the duty imposed under the Indian Stamp Act on the sale Certificate issued by the Recovery Officer under Chapter V of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 read with rule 65 of the II Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961, can be levied"?. This is, precisely, the question, which needs to be answered in this writ petition.

2. The property bearing flat No.1079-A (ground floor), at Anna Nagar in Villivakkam village was brought for sale by the Recovery Officer attached to the Debt Recovery Tribunal No.II, Chennai as per the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 in DRC No.456 of 2001, as per the order made in T.A.No.434 of 1997. Public auction was held by the Recovery Officer on 28.09.2001, in order to recover the amount due to the Federal Bank, Thirumangalam, Chennai, from its erstwhile owner Mr.B.S.Jeyapandian. The petitioner was the successful bidder. The petitioner paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.8,50,000/- and the sale was confirmed in his favour. Thereafter, the Recovery Officer issued a Sale Certificate dated 29.10.2001 as provided in Rule 65 of the II Schedule to the Income Tax Act.

3. According to the petitioner, the said Sale Certificate was forwarded to the third respondent for filing the same as required under Section 89 of the Registration Act. Strangely, along with the Sale Certificate, the Recovery Officer forwarded a Deed of sale also. Admittedly, the Sale Certificate was levied with stamp duty as provided in Article 18(c) of the Indian Stamp Act. Thereafter, the third respondent, who is vested with the powers of Collector, as per the Indian Stamps Act, impounded the said document by his proceedings in impounding No.1 of 2002 and kept the document without registration. He demanded stamp duty as per Article 23 of the Indian Stamp Act and surcharge under Section 116-A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. The petitioner submitted an objection for the same in his letter dated 05.08.2002. In the said letter, the petitioner had informed the third respondent that he had rightly paid the stamp duty at 8% as per Article 18(c) of the Indian Stamp Act as the document is only a Sale Certificate and not a Sale Deed. He further contended that except the stamp duty, no other amount, such as surcharge, could be levied.

4. But, the third respondent, by his proceedings dated 29.10.2002, rejected the said explanation and held that Article 18 (c) of the Indian Stamp Act is applicable only to a Certificate of Sale, whereas, what was produced before him was a Sale Deed and so the same is liable for Stamp duty under Article 23 of the Act and surcharge under Section 116-A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. The Recovery Officer also sent a letter dated 04.02.2002 stating that what was forwarded by him was only a Sale Certificate and not a Sale Deed, which was also not considered. Thereafter, against the above stated order of the third respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent. The second respondent by his proceedings in P.M.No.12096-P-1/2003 dated 06.11.2003 rejected the said appeal. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

5. In this writ petition, the prayer of the petitioner is "for a mandamus to direct the second respondent to state the case relating to the petitioner's appeal bearing P.M.No.12096-P-1/2003 before him culminating in his impugned order dated 06.11.2003, and refer the same to this Court under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act II of 1899 for a decision on the stamp duty leviable upon the document concerned in the case."

6. A detailed counter has been filed by the second respondent wherein it is stated that what was presented before the third respondent was only a sale deed and it is not a Sale Certificate. Therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference at the hands of this Court, it is