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)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.