SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 3806

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
K.Veeraraghavan – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government – Respondent



##PAGE1##

W.P.No.1009 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

W.P.No.1009 of 2026

K.Veeraraghavan .. Petitioner

vs

1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,

Commercial Tax and Registration Department,

Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Inspector General of Registration,

100, Santhome High Road,

Chennai – 600 004.

3.The District Revenue Officer (Stamps),

Office of the District Collector, Chennai,

Singaravelar Maligai, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai – 600 001.

4.The Sub Registrar,

Office of the Sub Registrar,

Thiruporur, Kancheepuram District

Pin 603 310. .. Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India

praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call

for the records of the second respondent in his impugned order

No.Na.Ka.36368/NI/2025 dated 26.11.2025 with all other

connected records and quash the same and direct the fourth

respondent to accept payment of Rs.3,52,584/- only without

interest for deficit stamp duty and deficit registration fees in respect

of sale deed Document No.4162/2008 registered at fourth

respondent office and release the said document to the petitioner.

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/01/2026 04:16:24 pm )

##PAGE2##

W.P.No.1009 of 2026

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manoharan

For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan,

Special Government Pleader

ORDER

The petitioner assails an order dated 26.11.2025 of the

second respondent and seeks a direction to the fourth respondent

to accept the payment of Rs.3,52,584/- without interest.

2. The petitioner was directed to pay deficit stamp duty by

order dated 30.04.2012. In relation thereto, the petitioner had filed

an appeal before the third respondent. The said appeal was

dismissed by order dated 13.08.2024. The petitioner submitted a

representation dated 16.09.2024 to the second respondent. Such

representation was rejected under the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

procedure prescribed under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act,

1899 was not followed while issuing the original order. In particular,

he submits that notice in Form I should have been issued under

Rule 4 of Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of

Instruments) Rules, 1968. Because notice in Form I was not issued,

he submits that the proceedings are vitiated. He also submits that

the Samadhan Scheme was in force and that the petitioner was

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/01/2026 04:16:24 pm )

##PAGE3##

W.P.No.1009 of 2026

unable to make payment within the prescribed time limit on account

of serious accident affecting members of the petitioner’s family.

4. Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader,

accepts notice for all the respondents. By referring to order dated

13.08.2024 of the third respondent, he points out that the

petitioner was provided multiple opportunities as disclosed therein.

He also points out that cogent reasons were assigned for rejecting

the petitioner’s request. He relies on Section 47A(4) of the Indian

Stamp Act to contend that the impugned order contains no infirmity.

5. Section 47A(4) provides as under:

‘47-A Instruments of conveyance etc.,

undervalued how to be dealt with.-

(1) …..

(2) ….

(3)…..

(4) Every person liable to pay the difference in

the amount of duty under sub-section (2) or sub-

section (3) shall, pay such duty within such period as

may be prescribed. In default of such payment, such

amount of duty outstanding on the date of default

shall be a charge on the property affected in such

instrument. On any amount remaining unpaid after

the date specified for its payment, the person liable

3/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/01/2026 04:16:24 pm )

##PAGE4##

W.P.No.1009 of 2026

to pay the duty shall pay, in addition to the amount

due, interest at one per cent per month on such

amount for the entire period of default:

Provided that where a person has preferred an

appeal against the order under sub-section (2) or

sub-section (3)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top