SMT. SHANTI DEVI L. SINGH AND ANR. versus TAX RECOVERY OFFICER AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 627 · Decided: 23-04-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. SHANTI DEVI L. SINGH AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
TAX RECOVERY OFFICER AND ORS. 
-~-
APRIL 23, 1990 
[S. RANGANATHAN AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Stamp Act, 1899: Sections 3 and 29(f) and Schedule I, 
Article 18---Tax Recovery Sale-Certificate of Sale-Whether pur-
-7 
chaser of property liable to pay stamp duty. 
.---
Registration Act, 1908: Sections 17(2)(xii) and 89(4)-Tgx Reco- c 
very Sale-Purchaser of Property-Whether required to get certificate 
of sale registered-Term "Revenue Officer"-Whether includes Tax 
Recovery Officer. 
"'r -
Income Tax Act, 1961/lncome Tax (Certificate Proceedings) 
Rules, 1962: Rule 21-Tax Recovery Sale-Purchaser of Propert}I-
D 
Whether required to get certificate of sale registered. 
I 
The appellants purchased properties in auction sales conducted 
by the Tax Recovery Officer for recovery of income tax and were issued 
sale certificates. Copies of certificates were also sent to the Sub-
Registrar, as required under Rule 21 of the Income Tax (Certificate) 
E 
--'{ 
Proceedings Rules-ITCP Rules. The appellants approached the Sub-
Registrar for getting the properties registered in their names but the 
Sub-Registrar and the Collector of Stamps refused to do so unless 
stamp duty was paid on the certificate of sale. At the appellants' 
request, the Tax Recovery Officer also addressed the two officers for 
getting the entries made in the Register on the basis of the copy of sale 
F 
~---
certificate. He also informed the Collector of Stamps that acc'!rding to 
~ 
the legal advice given to him no stamp duty was payable on the certifi-
cate of sale. However, no action was taken by either of the officers. The 
appellants' request to Delhi Administration and Municipal Corporation 
to effect mutation entries in the Corporation Register, was also not 
acceded to on account of the appellants' failure to pay the transfer fees, 
G 
leviable as additional stamp duty under the Delhi Municipal Act. 
Therefore, the appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court 
praying for directions to the respondents to register the certificate of 
··~. 
sale and mutate the property in the name of the appellants. The High 
Court dismissed the petitions holding that, in the absence of specific 
contract to the contrary, the liability to pay the stamp duty was that of 
H 
the purchaser. 
627 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
628 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 2 S.C.R. 
Allowing the appeals by the purchasers, partly, this Court, 
HELD: I. Under section 89( 4), every Revenue Officer, granting a 
certificate of sale of immovable property or public auction should send a 
copy of such certificate to the registering officer within the local limits 
of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the immovable property 
comprised in such certificate is situate, and such registering officer 
shall file the copy or copies, as the case may be, in his Book No. J. 
So far as sales for recovery of income-tax are concerned rule 21 of 
the !TCP Rules, makes a like provision requiring the concerned 
T.R.O. to send a copy of the certificate of sale to the registering officer 
concetned. [ 632E-G] 
There is no need to read the term 'revenue officer' in any 
restricted sense. It is wide and comprehensive enough to include the 
T.R.O. who effects a compulsory sale for the recovery of an income-tax 
demand. The registeration officer has to act in terms of section 89( 4) of 
the Indian Registration Act read with Rule 21 of the !TCP Rules and file 
the copy of the certificate of sale received by him from the T .R.O. in his 
Book No. J. [633A-B] 
2. Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908 makes it clear 
that the certificate of sale issued in a court sale or by a revenue officer 
does not need registration. Though this provjsion, like section 89, 
relates only to a certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of auy 
property sold by public auction by a civil court or revenue officer, the 
certificate issued by the T.R.O. is also covered by this provision. It is, 
therefore, not obligatory on the purchaser of property in a tax reco-
very sale to get the certificate of sale registered in order to perfect his 
title. However, if he presents the original certificate· of sale to the 
Registration Officer for registration, the Registration Officer will have 
to comply with the relevant statutory provision in this regard. [636F-HJ 
3.1 The Certificate of sale itself not being a compulsorily register-
able document: vide section 17(2)(xii), the transfer

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.