The registering authority lacks power under Section 47A to assess sale certificates from public auctions.

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

Heard both sides.

2.The only question that calls for consideration is whether the registering authority could have invoked the power under Section 47A of the Stamp Act to make reference in the case of sale certificates presented to him for registration.

3.The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions by holding that the registering authority did not have the power to make the reference. In fact, the amounts paid by the writ petitioners were also ordered to be refunded. The department is on appeal challenging the said order.

4.The learned Special Government Pleader draws our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench reported in 2019 (4) CTC 839 (Dr.R.Thiagarajan Vs. Inspector General of Registration) in support of his contention.

5.We are of the view that the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench should be taken to have been impliedly overruled ruled in view of the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1554 ( Registrar of Assurances Vs. ASL Vyapar Private Limited ). After elaborately discussing the statutory scheme in Paragraph No.33, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case of a public auction monitored by the Court, the discretion would not be available to the registering authority under Section 47A of the Act. This was followed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in (2024) 4 MLJ 754 ( Vijayalakshmi Marketing, Partnership Firm Vs. State of Tamil Nadu ). It is relevant to note that in the case of SARFAESI sale also, the same would be the position. Reference may be made to M/s. Esjaypee Impex Private Limited Vs. Assistant General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank . Paragraph Nos.5 to 10 of the decision reported in ( Vijayalakshmi Marketing, Partnership Firm Vs. State of Tamil Nadu ) read as follows:-

“5. The issue relating to payment of stamp duty on sale certificate is no longer res-integra. One of us [Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.Subramanian] has in Bell Tower Enterprises LLP, Rep. by its Managing Partner Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, reported in 2022 (5) CTC 454, after referring all the precedents on the issue of stamping of sale certificate had held that the stamp duty payable on the sale certificate is only 5% and the registration charges payable is 1%

and had observed as follows:-

“25. From the above discussion, it could be seen that in view of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme 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 a Revenue Officer and the certificate issued by him in evidence of such sale, would be a document which is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act. It would be sufficient, if the document is lodged with the Registrar under Section 89(4) to be filed by him in the Book-I maintained by him. The decisions of this Court in the Inspector General of Registration v. K.K.Thirumurugan, (Division Bench,) The Inspector General of Registration v. Kanagalakshmi Ganaguru, (Division Bench), Dr.R..Thiagarajan v. Inspector General of Registration, (Full Bench) and The Inspector General of Registration v. Prakash Chand Jain, (Division Bench) are no longer good law, in view of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esjaypee Impex Pvt Ltd v. Assistant General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank.

26. The next question that would arise is to the amount of stamp duty and registration charges payable, if such certificate is presented for registration. Article 18 of the Stam