ORDER :

1. The petitioner is a partnership firm. It purchased the petition-mentioned properties in an auction conducted by the official liquidator/High Court of Madras in C.P No. 17 of 2004. The properties belonged to M/s. SIV Industries Limited which was ordered to be wound up on 28.04.2004. The properties were brought to public auction on 04.09.2023. The petitioner was the successful bidder. After remittance of the entire sale consideration, sale certificate was issued by the official-liquidator to the petitioner on 10.11.2023.

2. The petitioner presented the sale certificate before the registering officer (R2 herein) for registration. The registering officer demanded payment under the following heads:

“5% stamp duty, 2% registration charges and 2% surcharge”

The petitioner protested that while they are liable to pay stamp duty and registration fees, demand of 2% surcharge is not legal. Since the registering officer insisted on payment of surcharge also, the petitioner paid the same under protest. The sale certificate was registered as Doc No.2238 of 2025. This writ petition has been filed seeking refund of the surcharge amount paid by them.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res integra. He relied on the decisions reported in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Pramod Kumar Gupta,  (1991) 1 SCC 633, Inspector General of Registration vs. Trinity Colour India (P) Ltd.  2022 SCC OnLine Mad 8784 made in W.A No. 1606 of 2021 vide order dated 01.08.2024 and Sri Balaji Fibre vs. Inspector General of Registration,  2024 SCC OnLine Mad 8784.

4. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit. The learned Additional Advocate General took me through its contents. The stand of the respondents is that collection of surcharge amount was as per Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Duty on Transfers of Property (in Municipal Areas) Act, 2009 (Act 32 of 2009). According to him, if the sale certificate had merely been filed in Book No.1 under Section 89(1) of the Act, then, even the stamp duty was not required to be paid. But if the auction purchaser wanted to register the sale certificate, then, he has to necessarily pay not only the required stamp duty and registration fees but also the surcharge duty. When the auction purchaser presents the sale certificate, it acquires the character of conveyance as per the Articles 18 and 23 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. He pointed out that this issue has been authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court in The Inspector General of Registration vs. M/s Sulochana Cotton Spinning (P) Ltd. (W.A. No. 1115 of 2017 vide order dated 03.04.2024). He also added that the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench rendered in Inspector General of Registration vs. Trinity Colour India (P) Ltd. made in W.A No. 1606 of 2021 vide order dated 01.08.2024 which favours the petitioner's stand had already been put to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and notice has been ordered in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 53340/2024 on 01.08.2024. The learned Additional Advocate General was at pains to point out that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter, it may not be appropriate for this Court to delve into the merits of the controversy. He called upon this Court to dismiss this writ petition.

5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

6. The only question that calls for consideration is whether surcharge is leviable on a sale certificate under Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 2009 when it is presented for registration. Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 2009 is the charging section and it reads as follows :

“3. There shall be levied a duty on transfers of property in every municipal area:

(a) in the form of a surcharge on the duty imposed by the Indian Stamp Act,1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Stamp Act) as in force for the time being in the State of Tamil Nadu, on every in