Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act is not applicable to public auctions, as established by precedent.

ORDER

The petitioner participated in an e-auction held under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and was the successful bidder. Therefore, sale certificate dated 25.08.2025 was executed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner paid stamp duty at 7% of the sale consideration specified in the sale certificate and registration charges at 2% thereon. The document was assigned pending document no.P/69/2025. The payment of stamp duty and registration fees at the rates mentioned above was under protest.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction for the registration and release of the pending document and also seeks refund of sum of Rs.41,59,300/- towards stamp duty and Rs.20,79,650/- towards registration charges.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that a reference under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 does not lie in respect of properties purchased in a public auction. In support of this contention, he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in V.N.Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector and others, (2009) 7 SCC 438 (V.N.Devadoss). He also relies on the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Registrar of Assurances & another v. ASL Vyapar Private Limited and another, Civil Appeal No.8282 of 2022, judgment dated 10.11.2022 (ASL Vyapar). He refers to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Dr.R.Thiagarajan v. Inspector General of Registration and others, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 9085 (Dr.R.Thiagarajan) and contends that the said judgment did not take into account the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in V.N.Devadoss. In light of the consistent position taken in these judgments that Section 47A cannot be invoked in cases wherein the market value is determined pursuant to an auction, he submits that the petitioner is entitled to the registration and release of the pending document.

4. As regards the request for refund, in view of the urgent requirement for registration and release of the document, he submits that he may be granted leave to seek such refund in a subsequent proceeding.

5. Learned Advocate General appears on behalf of the State. He invited my attention to the orders passed in S.L.P.No.26950 of 2024, The Inspector General of Registration and another v. Kovai Medical Center and Hospital Limited and another, fixing the date for final hearing in a batch of cases pertaining to the applicability of Section 47A to public auctions conducted under several statutes. He relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Inspector General of Registration v. Kanagalakshmi Ganaguru, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 38100, which distinguished the judgment in V.N.Devadoss on the ground that market price was determined therein by the Asset Sale Committee consisting of representatives of IDBI, debenture-holders, the Government of West Bengal and the Special Director of BIFR. In these circumstances, learned Advocate General submits that the matter may be kept pending until a decision is taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

6. In view of the request made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner to grant leave to initiate separate proceedings as regards refund, the only issue to be decided is whether proceedings under Section 47A of the Registration Act lie.

7. In V.N.Devadoss, the Supreme Court dealt with a sale under supervision of the Board For Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR)in proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,1985.

In that context, the Supreme Court held as under in paragraphs 16 to 18, which are set out below:

“16. Market value is a changing concept. The explanation to sub-Rule (5) makes