Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 1109
High Court of Judicature at Madras
B. RAJENDRAN, J.
S. Abubacker Siddiq & Another
Versus
Inspector General of Registration & Chief Revenue Authority Chennai & Others
Writ Petition Nos. 1912 to 1916 of 2014 & M.P. Nos. 1 to 1 of 2014
Decided On : 09-06-2014
For the Petitioners:Jayesh B. Dolia for M/s. Aiyar & Dolia, Advocates.
For the Respondents: K.V. Dhanapalan, Additional Government Pleader.
The delay in registering the sale deeds was on the part of the petitioners, and they were estopped from questioning the authority of the respondents in resorting to the provisions under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act.
Headnote:
Stamp Duty - Property Dispute - Indian Stamp Act, 1989 - Section 47A (1) (3)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the stamp duty payable on sale deeds for a property sold in a court auction in 2007 and registered in 2014. The petitioners claimed that the stamp duty paid based on the 2007 auction sale price was correct, while the respondents argued that the stamp duty should be based on the prevailing market value at the time of registration in 2014.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in registering the sale deeds was on the part of the petitioners, and they were estopped from questioning the authority of the respondents in resorting to the provisions under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act. The court held that the impugned notices were in the nature of a show cause notice and the writ petitions were premature, as the petitioners could still submit their explanation to the notices and agitate the points before the appellate authority.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to question the notices issued by the second respondent in Form I on the ground that the sale had taken place by virtue of a court auction and the price fixed in such auction had been confirmed by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in getting the sale deeds registered was on the part of the petitioners, and they were estopped from questioning the authority of the respondents in resorting to the provisions under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act. The court also found that the impugned notices were in the nature of a show cause notice and the writ petitions were premature.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed as premature, and the petitioners were directed to submit their explanation to the show cause notices sent by the second respondent.
1. As the issues involved in these writ petitions are inter-related and common arguments have been advanced by counsel for both sides besides that the petitioners and the respondents are one and the same, these writ petitions are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. In all these petitions, the petitioners challenges the notices dated 13.01.2014 issued by the second respondent, in and by which, the second respondent called upon the petitioners to submit their objections, if any, for the proposed demand for difference in stamp duty determined therein.
3. The facts leading to the filing of the above writ petitions is that the property bearing Door Nos. 92/1, 92/4, 92/5, 96/6 and 92/7, corresponding Old Door No. 86/1, 86/4, 86/5, 86/6 and 86/7, Chamiers Road, Raja Annamalaipuram consisting of basement plus five floors belonged to M/s. Conch Chits and Commercial Gorporation Private Limited. The said properties were brought on auction sale on 21.09.2007 in which M/s. True Value Homes (I) Pvt. Ltd. participated and declared as the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 7,35,00,000/- and the auction sale was also confirmed by this Court by an order dated 10.01.2008. According to the petitioners, as per the nomination clause in the sale notice, the purchasers viz. M/s. True Value Homes (I) Pvt. Ltd. have nominated the petitioners herein and it was also confirmed by this Court in the order dated 10.01.2008. In the meantime, the original owner viz. M/s. Conch Chits and Commercial Corporation Private Limited revived and came out of the winding up proceedings by an order dated 27.02.2008 passed by this Court in C.A. No. 2964 of 2007 in C.P. No. 4 of 1987. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed an application in C.A. No. 810 of 2010 in C.P. No. 4 of 1987 before this Court seeking for a direction to the Official Liquidator to execute the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners and by virtue of an order dated 18.11.2013 passed by this Court, the Official Liquidator also executed five sale deeds in respect of each floor of the building in favour of the petitioners herein on 13.12.2013. On the same day, the Official Liquidator addressed a letter to the third respondent herein to register the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners presented the sale deeds for registration and the stamp duty payable thereon was calculated as per the value mentioned in the sale deeds, which was the auction sale price equally divided in five sale deeds. However, the third respondent entertained a doubt as regards the correct stamp duty payable and the documents were kept as a pending document without giving the registration number. Thereafter, the third respondent referred the matter to the second respondent to assess the correct stamp duty payable on the documents. According to the petitioners, they have paid the stamp duty as per the sale price indicated in the documents and therefore the stamp duty paid by them reflects the correct market value of the property. In this context, the petitioners also relied on the decision of this Court in the case of (Devi Narayan Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and others) reported in 2007 (5) CTC 60 to contend that the amount fixed in the auction sale, which was subsequently confirmed by this Court, is the basis for payment of stamp duty and it reflects the correct market value of the property. Inspite of the same, the respondents did not accept the contentions of the petitioners. Subsequently, the third respondent numbered the sale deeds as document Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of 2014 and referred the same to the second respondent for determination of the correct stamp duty as contemplated under Section 47 A (1) (3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1989. On such reference, the second respondent issued the notices in Form I dated 13.01.2014, calling upon the petitioners to submit their objections within 21 days, which are ch
