IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.07.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.8247 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.8458 of 2023

1. Trinity Colour India (P) Limited, Rep. by its Director, Mr.A.Yogesh Kumar, S/o. C.Ayyakkannu, No. 24/1, Annamalai Layout, Off- Mettur Road, Erode-638 011. ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Inspector General of Registrations, Mylapore, Chennai.

2. The Sub Registrar, Annur, Coimbatore district. ... Respondents Prayer :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to refund the entire 2% additional stamp duty collected from the petitioner company for registering the Sale Certificate dated 22.11.2021 presented by the petitioner company and registered as Doc. No. 5356/ 2022, dated 22.04.2022, before the 2nd respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.E.J.Ayyappan For Respondents :

(for R1 to R2) : Mr.R.Ramanlal, A.A.G.

O R D E R

The writ of Mandamus has been instituted to direct the respondents one and two to refund the entire 2% additional stamp duty collected from the petitioner company for registering the sale certificate dated 22.11.2021, presented by the petitioner company and registered a Document No.5356/2022 dated 22.4.2022.

2.The petitioner company is engaged in manufacture and export of lingerie and nightwear having its registered officer at Erode District. The petitioner company is the auction purchaser, purchased the property through an auction sale conducted by the authorised Officer of Bank of Baroda. The petitioner company presented the sale certificate for registration on 22.04.2022 before the second respondent Sub Registrar and the document was registered as Document No.5356/2022 dated

22.04.2022.

3.On presentation of the sale certificate for registration, the petitioner company was directed to pay a stamp duty of 7 % (5% Stamp Duty + 2% Surcharge) on the value of the sale certificate. Accordingly, the petitioner company paid the charges and the document was registered and released.

4.Subsequently, the petitioner company filed the present writ petition on the ground that for registration of sale certificate, 2% surcharge could not be recovered and therefore, submitted an application for refund of the said surcharge amount.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of the Bell Tower Enterprises LLP Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu dated 12.09.2022 passed in W.P.No. 23237 of

2018. The following paragraphs are relied on:

9.Countering the said submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader based on the judgement of the two Divisional Benches and the Full Bench of this Court, Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel would submit that the judgments of the Division Bench and the Full Bench in The Inspector General of Registration v.Kanagalakshmi Ganaguru's case over ruled by the judgement of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esjaypee Impex Pvt Ltd v. Assistant General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, reported in 2021 (11) SCC 537, the learned counsel would place considerable reliance on the following passage in Esjaypee Impex Pvt Ltd, in support of his contention:

.. “16. We are of the view that the mandate of law in terms of Section 17(2) (xii) read with Section 89)4) of the Registration Act, 1908 only required the authorised officer of the Banch under the SARFAESI Act to hand over the duly validated sale certificate to the auction-purchaser with a copy forwarded to the registering authorities to be filed in Book I as per Section 89 of the Registration Act.”

...

25.From the above discussion, it could be seen that in view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Spreme Court in Esjaypee Impex Pvt Ltd v. Assistant General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, the law as it stands today is that an Authorised Officer, who conducts a sale under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, would be Revenue Officer and th