Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.
Hiranandani Township Private Limited [now “Hiranandani Realtors Private Limited”] Represented by its Authorized Signatory, R.Rajaratnam, Mumbai – Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration and ors. – Respondents
W.P.Nos.17490 to 17497 of 2012
Decided On : 02-12-2021
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 33A(1) - Article 5(j) of Schedule 1A - Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of undervaluation of instruments) Rules, 1968 - Rule 7 - Agreement for Sale - Sale Deeds - Recovery of deficit stamp duty - Petitioner company had entered into an agreement for sale with its vendor and presented for registration before the third respondent and all agreement for sale were registered in following manner for the purchase of certain agricultural lands - Whether proceedings initiated under Section 33A(1) of Act is barred by limitation or not - It is a well settled principle of law that where a statutory functionary is asked to perform a statutory duty within the time prescribed therefor, the same would be directory and not mandatory. (Para 49).
Finding of the Court: Proper stamp duty payable has not been paid or has been insufficiently paid, such duty or the deficit as case may be made on a certificate from the Registrar of the Registration District, be recovered from the person liable to pay the duty, as an arrear of land revenue - Though, in both the provisions meant to collect insufficient stamp duty, one is pending registration and another one is after registration - Therefore, judgment cited by learned Additional Advocate General is not helpful to the case on hand - Enquiry was initiated by the second respondent after completion of three years and issued certificate as contemplated under Section 33A of Act - It is also curious to note that even before the issuance of show cause notice in pursuant to agreements for sale, all the vendors, executed sale deeds in favour of the petitioner and all the sale deeds were duly registered and released in favour of the petitioner - Therefore, there is no loss to the Ex-chequer.
Result: Petitions allowed.
ORDER :
All the writ petitions have been filed to call for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent in proceedings, bearing No.53024/P1/2011, dated 10.04.2012 and the Certificate bearing No.8039/B2/2008, dated 04.10.2011 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and forbear the respondents from initiating any further action basis the Agreement for sale in respect of the subject property.
2. The petitioner is one and the same in all the writ petitions. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner company had entered into an agreement for sale with its vendor and presented for registration before the third respondent and all the agreement for sale were registered in the following manner for the purchase of certain agricultural lands,
| S. No | Doct. No. | Date of execution | Vendor | Purchaser | Confirming Party | Consideration amount in crores |
| 1. | 10325/2007 | 17.10.2007 | 1. D.Suresh Reddy 2. M.R.K.S. Varma | Hiranandani Township Private Ltd., | M/s.Sai Surya Realtors and Developers | 3,50,59,999 |
| 2. | 10326/2007 | 17.10.2007 | 1. D. Peter Francis 2. P.Solomon Francis 3. S.Fathima Jeyamary 4.P. Antony Josephine | Hiranandani Township Private Ltd., | M/s.Sai Surya Realtors and Developers | 14,50,00,000 |
| 3. | 10327/2007 | 17.10.2007 | T.L. Sridharan | Hiranandani Township Private Ltd., | M/s.Sai Surya Realtors and Developers | 3,16,25,000 |
| 4 | 10328/2007 | 17.10.2007 | M. Kausalya | Hiranandani Township Private Ltd., | M/s.Sai Surya Realtors and Developers | 4,73,80,000 |
| 5. | 10329/2007 | 17.10.2007 | E. Rajendran | Hiranandani Township Private Ltd., | M/s.Sai Surya Realtors and Developers | 14,53,60,000 |
| 6. | 9752/2007 | 15.10.2007 | I. Narasimha Reddy | Hiranandani Township Private Ltd., | M/s.Sai Surya Realtors | 1,90,00,000 |
| 7. | 9753/2007 | 15.10.2007 | T.Chandra sekar | Hiranandani Township Private Ltd., | M/s.Sai Surya Realtors | 3,00,00,000 |
| 8. | 4387/2008 | 23.4.2008 | 1.R.Mayilv aganan 2.A.R. Rosekumar | Hiranandani Township Private Ltd., | M/s.Sai Surya Realtors and Developers | 4,02,50,000 |
3. The lands comprised in various survey numbers situated at Thaiyur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District (herein after called as "subject property"). The vendor had agreed to sell the subject property to the petitioner company and agreed to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner company, subject to satisfaction of clear and marketable title. Under the agreement of sale, the full sale consideration was paid by the petitioner company to the vendor and the vacant possession was also handed over to the petitioner company by its vendors. All the agreement for sale were presented for registration and the petitioner had paid Rs.100/- towards stamp duty, as per the Article 5(j) of the Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable in the State of Tamil Nadu (herein after called as "the Act") and also paid 1% on the sale consideration as registration fees. Accordingly, the above said manner of the agreement for sale were registered by the third respondent.
4. In pursuant to the said agreement for sale, the vendors executed the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner in the following manner,
| S. No | Writ Petition No. | Agreement For Sale | Sale Deed |
| ||
| Doc. No | Presented for Registration on | Period of Limitation Expired on | Doc. No | Presented for Registration on | ||
| 1. | 17490 of 2012 | 9752/2007 | 15.10.2007 | 14.10.2010 | 1104/2011 | 31.05.2010 |
| 2. | 17491 of 2012 | 10327/2007 | 17.10.2007 | 16.10.2010 | 1103/2011 | 31.05.2010 |
| 3. | 17492 of 2012 | 10329/2007 | 17.10.2007 | 16.10.2010 | 1106/2011 | 31.05.2010 |
| 4 | 17493 of 2012 | 4387/2008 | 23.04.2008 | 22.04.2011 | 1105/2011 | 31.05.2010 |
| 5. | 17494 of 2012 | 10325/2007 | 17.10.2007 | 16.10.2010 | 3804/2010 | 31.05.2010 |
| 6. | 17495 of 2012 | 10326/2007 | 17.10.2 | |||
The correct procedure to be adopted in cases where the dispute is about the true market value of the property is as per subsections (4) and (5) of Section 32A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. The ....
The correct procedure for determining the true market value of the property and recovering deficit stamp duty in cases of dispute is as per sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 32A of the Maharashtra ....
Procedural compliance under Section 33A of the Indian Stamp Act suffices for levy of deficit stamp duty; remedy through appeal is not barred by concurrent writ proceedings.
Procedural compliance under Section 33A of the Indian Stamp Act is essential and if satisfied, appeals should resolve substantive disputes rather than writ petitions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
