W.P.No.2758 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 08.02.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICEN.SATHISHKUMAR

W.P.No.2758 of 2023

The Federal Bank Ltd.,

Rep. by its Senior Manager,

LCRD, Coimbatore Division,

No.21Variety Hall Road,

Coimbatore-641001

... Petitioner

Vs.

1 The Sub Registrar,

Office of Sub Registrar, Pollachi,

No.104,Taluk Office Campus,

Coimbatore Road, Pollachi-642001.

2 Office of The Principal Commissioner of

GST and Central Excise, Headquarters,

Preventive Unit6/7A.T.D.Street,

Race Course Road, Coimbatore-641018.

3 Jayaprakash

... Respondents

Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, calling for the records of

the 1^st respondent and to quash the Reply Letter No.Na.Ka No.538/2022

dated 17.10.2022 of the 1st respondent with a consequential relief of

directing the 1st respondent to register the Sale Certificate dated

09.09.2022 issued by the petitioner Bank in favour of the 3rd respondent

Auction Purchaser.

1/36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.2758 of 2023

For Petitioner

: Mr.A.V.Radhakrishnan

For Respondent No.1 : Mr.YogeshKannadasan,

Special Govt. Pleader

ORDER

The challenge in this writ petition is an order dated 17.10.2022

passed by the first petitioner rejecting the request of the petitioner for

registration of the Sale Certificate.

2. The petitioner Bank is a secured creditor of the property which

was mortgaged in their favour on 19.10.2017. The deed of mortgage was

registered as Doc.No.8509 of 2017 before the first respondent. As the

mortgagor failed to repay the outstanding amount, the loan account was

classified as N.P.A. and action was initiated under the SARFAESI Act.

Consequently, the property was sold through a public auction, and a sale

certificate was also issued on 09.09.2022.When the sale certificate was

presented for registration, the impugned order was passed rejecting the

request of the petitioner for registration of Sale Certificate on the sole

ground that property was provisionally attached under Sec.83 of the

G.S.T.Act on 18.12.2021.

3. Mr. Yogesh Kannadasan, Special Government Pleader takes notice

2/36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.2758 of 2023

for the first respondent and submits that as per Rule 55-A of the Tamil

Nadu Registration Rules, if any property is attached or mortgaged or lease

agreement is entered into, the sale deed cannot be registered. Thus, as per

Rule 55-A of TamilNadu Registration Rules, a document cannot be

presented for registration unless the attachment is raised.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly

contend that even applying Rule 55-A of the Registration Rules, the so-

called provisional attachment has lapsed by operation of law itself.

Therefore, according to the counsel for the petitioner, Sec.83 of the

G.S.T.Act makes it very clear that any provisional attachment passed under

Sec.83 (1) of the Act will continue only for a period of one year and not

thereafter. Despite this being brought to the notice of the first respondent,

the impugned order came to be passed.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned

Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the

materials available on record.

6. This Court has encountered with several Writ Petitions

challenging the orders of the Registering authority refusing to register the

3/36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.2758 of 2023

documents or transaction permitted under law. Though the rule 55(A) has

not been directly challenged this Court is of the view that when a

subordinate Legislation is ex facie found to be in conflict with the

provision of the Parent Act and Transfer of Property act as well as

constitutional rights, the sub ordinate legislation