A sale certificate issued by an Authorised Officer under the SARFAESI Act is not compulsorily registrable, as the officer qualifies as a Revenue Officer under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, and such certificates are subject to duty under Article 18 of the Stamp Act, not as conveyances.

O R D E R

The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to refund the excess stamp duty and registration charges amounting to RS.19,72,620/- which, according to the petitioner, has been collected in excess by the respondents while registering the sale certificates issued by the Assistant General Manager of State Bank of India in its capacity as the Authorised Officer under the SARFAESI Act under Rule 9(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002.

2. It is the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner emerged as a successful bidder in the e-auctions conducted by the authorised officer of the State Bank of India and was favoured with six Sale Certificates for various properties purchased by the petitioner in the said auction. While registering the documents, the respective Registering Officers have collected Stamp Duty at 7% and registration charges at 4% for each of the sale certificates. According to the petitioner, the collection of stamp duty under Article 23 of the Stamp Act, treating the sale certificate issued as a conveyance itself is erroneous and the respondents ought to have collected stamp duty at 5% under Article 18 of the Stamp Act. According to the petitioner, the sale certificate issued by the Authorised Officer under the SARFAESI Act would not amount to a conveyance as defined under Article 23 of the Stamp Act. It could at best be treated as a certificate of sale granted by a Revenue Officer which would fall within Article 18 of the Indian Stamp Act.

3. Upon discovery of the fact that excess amount has been collected, the petitioner made a representation on 30.07.2018 seeking refund of the excess stamp duty and registration charges paid to the tune of Rs.19,72,760/-. Separate memos of calculation explaining, as to how, excess stamp duty and registration charges has been collected were also sent along with a said representation. Since there was no response, the petitioner has come up with the above Writ Petition.

4. Though no counter has been filed by the respondents this being a strictly legal issue, the Writ Petition was heard on merits.

5. Mr.Sharath chandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a Sale Certificate issued by an Officer authorised by a Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, would be akin to a sale by a Revenue Officer which would fall within Section 89(4) of the Registration Act. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, registration of such document is not mandatory in view of the provisions of Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act. The learned counsel would, however, submit that if such certificate is presented for registration, the Stamp Duty payable would be only at the rate of 5% and not at the rate of 7%. It is also the further contention of the learned counsel that the Registration Charges collected at 4% of the value is also incorrect and the registration charges payable could only be 1% as per Article 1 of the table of fees prescribed by the State Government under Section 78 of the Registration Act. The learned counsel would further point out that the proviso which has been included by G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 08.06.2017 would not apply to a sale certificate issued by the authorised officer and therefore, collection of 4% as Registration charges is wholly unjust.

6. Contending that a Writ of Mandamus seeking refund of tax coll