Madras High Court
Mahindra World City Developers Limited vs Inspector General Of Registration on 19 November, 2024
Author: P.T. Asha
Bench: P.T. Asha
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 19.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
W.P.Nos. 12238 & 29740 of 2024
W.P.No.12238 of 2024:
Mahindra World City Developers Limited
Mahindra Towers, Ground Floor, No.17/18, Pattullous Road,
Anna salai,
Chennai-600 002. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.Inspector General of Registration
Registration Department, No.100, Santhome Highway,
Chennai-600 028.
2.The District Registrar
Registration Department,
Chengalpattu.
3.The Sub-Registrar
Office of Sub-Registrar,
Joint II,
Chengalpattu. ...Respondents
1/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of
Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to admit and complete the
registration process of all instruments, without insisting on stamp duty
in respect of all instruments covered by S.O.2104 (E) dated 15.12.2006
and S.O. 1154 (E) dated 04.05.2009 notified by the Central
Government presented by the petitioner pertaining the properties
situated within the Special Economic Zone, Mahindra World City.
For Petitioner : Mr. Srinath Sridevan
Senior Counsel
For Ms.Aishwarya S.Nathan.
For Respondents : Mr. J.Ravindran
Additional Advocate General
For Mr. B.Vijay
Additional Government Pleader.
W.P.No.29740 of 2024:
Sunspaze Infrastructure Private Limited,
A Company registered under Companies Act,
having office at No.332/7, Suraj Ganga Arcade,
3rd Floor, 14th cross, 2nd Block,
Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 011 and
represented by its Authorised Signatory
Mr. Sachin Suresh. ...Petitioner
2/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
Vs.
1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority – cum -
Inspector General of Registration
Santhome High Road,
Mylapore,
Chennai-600 004.
2.The District Registrar
Registration Department,
Kancheepuram High Road,
Chengalpattu.
3.The Joint Sub-Registrar
Office of Sub-Registrar,
Kancheepuram High Road,
Chengalpattu.
4.M/s.Mahindra World City Developers Limited
A company registered under the Companies Act
having its Office at Administrative Block,
Central Avenue, Mahindra World City,
Mahindra World City Sub (PO),
Chengalpet Taluk and District – 603 004. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of
Mandamus, directing the official Respondents to refund stamp duty in a
sum of Rs.5,68,195 /- (Rupees Five Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand One
Hundred and Ninety Five only) to the Petitioner which was collected at
3/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
the time of registration of the Sub - Lease deeds dated 03.01.2024 and
registered on 21.03.2024 bearing Doc. Nos. 3597 of 2024 and 3598 of
2024 in the office of the 3rd respondent despite receipt of the Writ
Petitioner's representation dated 17.06.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr. R.Bharath Kumar
For Respondents : Mr. J.Ravindran
1 to 3 Additional Advocate General
For Mr. B.Vijay
Additional Government Pleader.
For Respondent 4: Mr. Srinath Sridevan
Senior Counsel
For Ms.Aishwarya S.Nathan.
COMMON ORDER
The issue that arise for consideration in the above Writ Petitions
is whether the registering authorities could claim stamp duty on
instruments pertaining to properties which are situate within the
Special Economic Zone. The facts which has prompted the petitioner
to approach this Court is herein below setout.
4/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
W.P.No.12238 of 2024:
2. The petitioner company is a leading real estate development
company having projects across the country. The petitioner had set up
the world class Industrial Park comprising the Special Economic Zone
(SEZ) and Domestic Tariff Area, near Chengalpattu by Public-Private-
Partnership with TIDCO under the name and style of Mahindra World
City.
3. The petitioner is the developer of a Special Economic Zone
claiming Mahindra World City SEZ situate within Mahindra World
City Industrial Park. This area has been notified as Special Economic
Zone, under the Central Governments Notification S.O.No.2104 E
dated 15.12.2006 and S.O.No.1154 (E) dated 04.05.2009 hereinafter
referred to as SOs. The Special Economic Zone is spread over an
extent of 450 acres and falls within the Sub Registration jurisdiction of
the 3rd respondent. The survey fields which constitutes the SEZ has
been notified in the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the
5/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, hereinafter referred to as the Act,
read with Rule 8 of the SEZ Rules by the Central Government,
hereinafter referred to as the Rules.
4. In addition, there are certain non processing zones which
include residential properties developed through certain other co-
developers including the petitioner. The subject matter in this Writ
Petition pertains to such a residential property.
5. The petitioner had developed residential facilities in this SEZ
by constructing apartment complexes, roads and other facilities for
which prior approval and permission had been obtained. The petitioner
has already developed residential complexes and facilities all of which
are made primarily with a view to serve the needs of industries
operating within the Mahindra World City Special Economic Zone.
6. The petitioner had developed the residential apartment
complex called “Aqualilly”, consisting of 891 apartments / villas
6/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
located within the SEZ, namely, Mahindra World City. The petitioner
had executed instruments in favour of residents of SEZ in the year
2016. The registering authorities took a stand that the petitioner is
liable to stamp duty unless it is proved that the land is used for proper
purpose.
7. This was challenged in W.P.No.31022 of 2018 and W.P.211 of
2016. This Court held that once the schedule property is covered by
the SOs the stamp duty exemption applies. This was taken up on
appeal by the state in W.A.No.1940 & 2058 of 2019. By order dated
22.07.2019, the Division Bench confirmed the order of the learned
Single Judge.
8. It was further taken up on appeal before the Hon’ble Appex
Court in S.L.P.No.29664 of 2022. By order dated 18.11.2022, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP.
7/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
9. Despite the above order, in September 2022 when the
petitioner had approached the 3rd respondent to register two lease deeds
pertaining to flats in the SEZ, the 3rd respondent refused to register the
same constraining the petitioner to file W.P.No.32684 of 2022, seeking
a direction to complete the registration formalities.
10. Pending the above Writ Petition, the 3rd respondent had
issued a demand notice calling upon the parties to make payment of the
alleged stamp deficit. Once again, the petitioner had challenged the
demand by filing W.P.Nos.19179 & 19185 of 2023 and by order dated
27.06.2023 the demand was quashed and direction was issued to the 2nd
respondent to entertain the lease deed for registration without insisting
on stamp duty.
11. Based on the above, the petitioner had made several
representations requesting for the registration formalities to be
completed. However, the 3rd respondent refused to complete the
registration formality, thereby constraining the petitioner to file
8/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
Cont.P.Nos.443 & 485 of 2024, after putting the 3rd respondent on
notice that contempt proceedings would have initiated against him.
12. On 11.03.2024, the contempt was taken up. The respondent
had informed the Court that the lease deeds would be registered
without insisting on the stamp duty. Therefore, the contempt petition
was closed.
13. Despite the several rounds of Court cases, where the
registering authorities have lost in all the rounds, every time the
petitioner presents documents for registration, the 3rd respondent
refuses to even admit the documents when presented. Therefore, the
petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition seeking mandamus
to the 3rd respondent to register documents that are submitted with
reference to SOs without insisting on stamp duty.
14. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending
that in the instant case there is a conveyance of housing unit to an
9/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
outsider who has no interest in the SEZ, namely, Mrs. Deepti Ahuja.
The 3rd respondent had impounded the instrument and referred the same
to the 2nd respondent under Sections 33, 35 and 38 (2) of the Stamp
Act. After following due procedure, the 2nd respondent had under
Section 40 of the Stamp Act, issued final orders to pay deficit stamp
duty on 03.07.2015. This was taken up on appeal to the 1st respondent
and by order dated 17.11.2015, the 1st respondent had confirmed the
orders of the 2nd respondent.
15. The purchaser, Deepthi Ahuja had filed W.P.No.211 of 2016
and by order dated 20.07.2016, this Court set aside the order
challenged and directed the respondent to register the lease deed
presented by the petitioner. This order was taken up on challenge by
the respondents in W.A.No.1940 of 2019. By order dated 22.07.2019,
the Division Bench of this Court had confirmed the order of the learned
Single Judge by holding that since the property in question located
within the non processing zone of the SEZ, stamp duty could not be
imposed.
10/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
16. An SLP was preferred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court with a
delay and the same was dismissed by order dated 18.11.2022.
However, the question of law was kept open. A review petition has
been filed in W.A.No.1940 of 2019, which is pending.
17. The respondent had taken a stand that the developer cannot
lease out the land to an outsider who is neither an employee of the SEZ
nor having any entitlement in this regard. The beneficiaries of the
stamp duty exemption shall only be those within SEZ Mahindra World
City and not beneficiaries who are outsiders of the SEZ.
18. The respondent further submit that the housing apartments
developed within SEZ are not meant for all. However, it is restricted to
entitled persons in the SEZ. Further, even in the lease deed that has
been entered into between the petitioner and the proposed lessee, a
condition Clause 4 (xiii) of the lease deeds make reference to additional
stamp duty and other levies in certain contingencies.
11/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
19. The respondent would submit that a reading of Rule 11 (10)
of the SEZ Rules, would lead to an irresistible conclusion that only
lease of residential facilities to the management staff, office staff and
workers of SEZ would be entitled to stamp duty exemption.
20. The respondent has extensively extracted Rule 11 A of the
SEZ Rules and the various circulars issued to state that the stamp duty
concession is available only to persons, who fall within the SEZ zone
and who avail the facilities of the same.
W.P.No.29470 of 2024:
21. W.P.No.29470 of 2024 also involves the very same issue for
consideration. The petitioner is a SEZ co-developer. The 4th
respondent who is the petitioner in W.P.No.12238 of 2024, is a duly
approved SEZ developer. The petitioner had obtained a letter of
approval on 21.04.2022 from the Board of Approval, Ministry of
Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, (SEZ Section)
12/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
Government of India, for developing infrastructure facility from the 4th
respondent for which a lease deed dated 03.08.2022 executed in favour
of the petitioner.
22. The same was presented for registration before the 3rd
respondent on 03.08.2022 claiming stamp duty exemption and the 3rd
respondent registered and released the lease deed granting stamp duty
exemption. The petitioner executed two sets of lease deed dated
03.01.2024 in respect of 6.06 acres of land along with the
superstructure in favour of M/s.Timken India Limited and M/s. Timken
Engineering & Research India Private Limited, having their office at
Mahindra World City SEZ, Anjur Village, Chengalpattu.
23. The aforesaid lessees are SEZ units and have obtained a letter
of of approval as a SEZ unit on 28.03.2023 and 25.01.2024 from the
Office of the Development Commissioner, Ministry of Commerce and
Industry, Department of Commerce, (SEZ Section) Government of
India.
13/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
24. When the petitioner attempted to register the said two sub-
lease deed executed in favour of the aforesaid companies, the 3rd
respondent refused to grant stamp duty exemption and therefore the
Writ Petitioner was forced to pay stamp duty and get the document
registered as Doc Nos.3597 & 3598 of 2024 and have obtained release
of the deeds. The petitioner had paid the stamp duty as the documents
were required for business requirement.
25. The petitioner would submit that they are entitled to seek
refund of the stamp duty paid as the property is situate in SEZ, which is
exempted from stamp duty, in view of Section 3 (3) of the Indian
Stamp Act as amended by the Act 28 of 2005.
26. The petitioner would submit that on an earlier occasion, this
Court had ordered stamp duty exemption in W.A.Nos.1940 & 2058 of
2018. The Division Bench of this Court observed that when the
property is admittedly located in the non processing zone of SEZ, they
14/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
were entitled to stamp duty exemption. The facts of the above case,
squarely applies to the facts of the instant case and the writ petitioner is
therefore entitled to refund of the stamp duty.
27. The petitioner would submit that in the Judgement in
W.P.No.20941 of 2018 – Atul and another Vs. Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority & others, this Court ordered refund of stamp duty.
28. The petitioner would submit that they have made a
representation on 17.06.2024 requesting the refund of stamp duty
amounting to a sum of Rs.5,68,195/- for sub-lease deed dated
03.01.2024 registered on 21.03.2024. The 1st respondent had asked the
2nd respondent to check whether the petitioner was entitled to stamp
duty refund and to provide the details. The 2nd respondent inturn
addressed the 3rd respondent on 13.08.2024, seeking a detailed report.
The respondents have not addressed the representation of the petitioner.
Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition.
15/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
29. A counter has been filed by the 3rd respondent, wherein it is
stated that with reference to two documents, namely, lease deed dated
03.01.2024 executed by M/s.Sunspaze Infrastructure Private Limited in
favour of M/s.TimKen India Ltd., and M/s.Sunspaze Infrastructure
Private Limited in favour of M/s.TimKen Engineering and Research
India Pvt., Ltd., stamp duty and the registration fees as demanded has
been paid and the documents have been registered as Doc.No.3597 &
3598 of 2024.
30. The 3rd respondent would contend that in respect of
transactions relating to the SEZ the guideline Instructions No.18 and
No.65, issued by the Government of India, Department of Commerce
(SEZ) has to be strictly construed and due compliance of these
instructions has to be maintained. The instructions are extracted herein
below:
Instruction No.18 dated 02.07.2009
“Whether stamp duty would be payable in respect of
16/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024sale or conveyance of the land developed by the
Developer only to the units in the SEZ or to any other
person or entity as well?
Clarification: Land, buildings, etc. falling outside
the notified SEZ will not be eligible for exemption from
stamp duty. Also, under the rules governing SEZ, sale of
SEZ land to units or other persons or entities is not
allowed. Similarly, conveyance of land, buildings,
premises, etc. by lease or otherwise (but not by sale) in a
SEZ can be made only to the units in the SEZ or entities
permitted to carry out operations within the SEZ areas as
per SEZ Rules. In such cases above, the concession of
stamp duty exemption will be allowed. Other persons or
entities will not be eligible for concession”.
(ii) Instruction No. 65 dated 27.10.2010
“Housing: Five per cent of the total area should be
used for constructing low cost housing and dormitories in
17/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024all SEZs of a size of 100 hectares or more. In case of a
SEZ of a size of less than 100 hectares, developers should
provide low cost housing /dormitories to the employees
depending upon the need of the SEZ as per the National
Urban Housing Policy 2007. Developer should rent out
these houses to the employees of units. The units could
take these houses on long-term lease for renting out to
their employees. The housing facilities created in the non
processing area could also be allowed to be used by
persons who are working for establishment relating to
SEZ developers, units and or are users of infrastructure
facilities created in the SEZ. In case a unit, having houses
on long lease closes down, these can be transferred to
other working units or the developer.”
31. The 3rd respondent would submit that the lease deeds which
have been referred in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition
does not indicate if the transaction is in conformity with Instructions
18/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
No.65 of the guideline dated 27.10.2010.
32. They would also take a stand that Rule 11 (10) of Special
Economic Zone Rules, would read that only lease of residential
facilities to management staff and workers of the SEZ would be
entitled to stamp duty concession and all other leases executed in
favour of non – entities in SEZ will not be entitled to remission of
stamp duty.
33. The 3rd respondent would also add that Rule 11 A of SEZ
Rules provides that where the property is situate in non processing
area then concessions will be allowed only if a certificate from
concerned Development Commissioner, SEZ is produced confirming
that the non processing area is for social and commercial infrastructure
and which is used only by the SEZ entities. If this certificate is not
produced then remission of stamp duty would not be applicable to that
document.
19/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
34. The 3rd respondent would contend that while dismissing the
SLP, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had kept the question of law open and
therefore, the petitioners are not correct in demanding a blanket order
from this Court.
35. The arguments of either side has been heard.
36. The petitioner’s contention is that once earlier orders of this
Court had mandated the registering authorities to register the document
without insisting on stamp duty, the repeated demand for the same is
causing immense hardship to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioners
have come forward with the present Writ Petitions.
37. Per contra, Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate
General, would submit that if such an order is given then the chance of
misusing the same would be high. He would further argue that the
concessions that has been given under the Act is to benefit the users of
20/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
the Zone and not to benefit the third parties totally unconnected with
either the processing zone or the non processing zone. He would
submit that the guideline instruction clarifies the aforesaid argument.
Therefore, he would submit that the Writ Petition deserves to be
dismissed.
38. The object for which this Act has come into force has been
encapsulated in the statement of objects and reasons as follows:
“The Government of India had announced a Special
Economic Zone Scheme in April 2000 with a view to
provide an internationally competitive environment for
exports. The objectives of Special Economic Zones
include making available goods and services free of
taxes and duties supported by integrated infrastructure
for export production, expeditious and single window
approval mechanism and a package of incentives to
attract foreign and domestic investments for promoting
export-led growth.”
21/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
39. Before discussing the issue on hand it would be useful to
extract some of the relevant sections of the Act.
40. Section 2 of the Act deals with definitions. Section 2 (a)
defines “appointed day” as follows:’
“appointed day” with reference to a Special
Economic Zone means the date on which the Special
Economic Zone is notified by the Central Government
under sub-section (1) of section 4;
41. Section 2 (f) describes co-developer as follows:
“Co-Developer” means a person who, or a State
Government which, has been granted by the Central
Government a letter of approval under sub-section (12)
of section 3;
22/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
42. Section 2 (g) defines “developer” as follow:
“Developer” means a person who, or a State
Government which, has been granted by the Central
Government a letter of approval under sub-section (10) of
section 3 and includes an Authority and a Co-
Developer;”
43. Section 2 (p) defines “infrastructure facilities” as follows:
“infrastructure facilities” means industrial,
commercial or social infrastructure or other facilities
necessary for the development of a Special Economic
Zone or such other facilities which may be prescribed;”
44. Section 2 (z a) defines “Special Economic Zone” as follows:
“Special Economic Zone” means each Special
Economic Zone notified under the proviso to sub-section
(4) of section 3 and sub-section (1) of section 4 (including
Free Trade and Warehousing Zone) and includes an
23/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024existing Special Economic Zone;”
45. Section 2 (z c) defines “Unit” as follows:
“Unit” means a Unit set up by an entrepreneur in a
Special Economic Zone and includes an existing Unit, an
Offshore Banking Unit and a Unit in an International
Financial Services Centre, whether established before or
established after the commencement of this Act;
46. Section 57 of the Act, talks about the amendment of the
certain enactments. The said provision would state that with effect
from the date notified by the Central Government the enactments
specified in the III Schedule would be amended in the manner specified
therein.
47. In exercise of this power Amendment has been made to the
Indian Stamp Act. The following has been inserted as a proviso to
Section 3 after clause 2:
24/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024“any instrument executed, by, or, on behalf of, or,
in favour of, the Developer, or Unit or in connection with
the carrying out of purposes of the Special Economic
Zone”
Therefore, from a reading of the above it is clear that the
amendment have been brought about in the Stamp Act.
48. Some of the rules relevant to the discussion are: Rule 11
provides for processing and non processing area, which are to be
demarcated by Development Commissioner. Rule 11 (10) would read
as follows:
“No vacant land in the non-processing area shall
be leased for business and social purposes such as
educational institutions, hospitals, hotels, recreation and
entertainment facilities, residential and business
complexes, to any person except by a co-developer
approved by the Board:
25/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
49. Rule 11 (A) which has been inserted with effect from
02.01.2015 talks about the Bifurication of non processing areas. Rule
11 (A) (2) deals with the second part where social or commercial
infrastructure and other facilities are permitted to be used only by the
Special Economic Zone entities.
50. Rule 11 (A) (3) (c) would read as follows:
“(c) The area restrictions for duty paid dual use non
processing area in the Special Economic Zones shall be
as follows:
(i) Housing – not more than twenty-five per cent of
non-processing area;
(ii) Commercial- not more than ten per cent of non-
processing area;
(iii) Open area and circulation area-not less than
forty-five per cent of non-processing area;
(iv) Social and institutional infrastructure including
26/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
schools, colleges, socio-cultural centres, training
institutes, banks, post office, etc., in the remaining area.
51. Having extracted the provisions of the Act and the Rules,
which are relevant to the case on hand it would be appropriate to
extract the earlier Judgements relating to the similar issue.
52. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the Judgement in
W.P.No.211 of 2016 – Deepti Ahuja Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority – cum – Inspector General of Registered, was considering
an issue as to whether the 1st respondent was justified in refusing to
grant exemption from payment of stamp duty in favour of the
petitioner. The petitioner therein had entered into a lease with the co
developer in a SEZ. The District Registrar had issued a show cause
notice to the petitioner therein to show cause as to why stamp duty and
penalty should not be collected from her. The response of the
petitioner was not considered and by order dated 04.06.2015 the
Registrar had held that the document was amenable to stamp duty.
27/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
53. The revision which was filed by the petitioner to the IG
Registration also went against her and therefore the challenging the
said order, the aforesaid Writ Petition had been filed. The learned
Judge after considering the arguments, the scheme of the Act as well as
the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act has observed as follows:
“17. It is trite to note that an executive or
administrative instructions can neither supplement nor
override the statutory provision or Rules or Regulations.
It is seen from the impugned order passed by the first
respondent that reliance was placed on Circular No.18
dated 02.07.2009 and Instruction No.65 dated 27.10.2010
to negate the claim of the petitioner for exemption of
stamp duty. When Section 3 (3) of the Indian Stamp Act
provides that no duty shall be chargeable in respect of an
instrument executed by a Developer or Co-developer in
connection with any land or building situated within the
SEZ, it cannot be nullified by placing reliance on the
28/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024Circular issued by the administrators. The respondents
ought not to have placed reliance on such Circulars,
which have no statutory force. This was the view taken by
the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of India in (Union of
India and another vs. Charanjit S. Gill and others) (2000)
5 Supreme Court Cases 742 which was relied on by the
learned Senior counsel for the petitioner wherein it was
held that administrative instructions issued or the notes
attached to the Rules, which are not referable to any
statutory authority cannot be permitted to bring about a
result which may take away the rights vested in a person
governed by the Act.”
54. The learned Judge directed the 3rd respondent therein namely,
the Sub Registrar to register the document without insisting on stamp
duty. The State had taken up the said order on appeal in W.A.No.1940
of 2019. The Division Bench upheld the order of the learned Single
Judge and while dismissing the appeal had observed as follows:
29/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024“12. In view of the admitted facts before us that the
property in question is admittedly located within the Non-
processing zone of the Special Economic Zone in
question, the learned Single Judge, in our considered
opinion, was perfectly justified in upholding the
exemption in favour of the writ petitioners. Therefore, we
find no merit in these Appeals and they are liable to be
dismissed.”
55. The State preferred SLP.(Civil).No.29664 of 2022, with the
delay of 1065 days to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court by its order dated 18.11.2022, dismissed the condone
delay petition. However, taking advantage of the observation that the
question of law is kept open, the registering authorities continue to
claim stamp duty on the document being presented in respect of the
properties coming within the SEZ.
30/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
56. The learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19179 of 2023 dealt
with a similar matter and relying upon the Division Bench order in
W.A.Nos.1940 & 2058 of 2019, allowed the Writ Petition.
57. A similar view has been taken in the Judgement dated
03.07.2024 in W.P.No.20941 of 2018 by another learned Single Judge,
who ordered refund of the stamp duty collected under protest, thereby
confirming the exemption of stamp duty for documents being presented
in respect of properties falling within the SEZ.
58. Despite this Court time and again observing that in respect of
the transaction with respect to the SEZ, the registering authority cannot
levy stamp duty, the respondent persists in making a demand for
payment of stamp duty for every document that is presented.
Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the Writ Petition. The
argument that in respect of 2 lease deeds stamp duty has been paid does
not overturn the position of law as it now stands.
31/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
59. On a conspectus of the above it is clear that instruments
executed by a developer / Co-Developer in connection with any land /
building situate within the SEZ cannot be charged with Stamp duty.
Therefore, a mandamus is issued directing the 3rd respondent to admit
and register instruments covered by the SOs pertaining to properties
situate with the SEZ, Mahindra World City without insisting on Stamp
duty.
60. The Writ Petitions are allowed. No costs.
19.11.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kan
32/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
To
1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority – cum –
Inspector General of Registration
Santhome High Road,
Mylapore,
Chennai-600 004.
2.The District Registrar
Registration Department,
Kancheepuram High Road,
Chengalpattu.
3.The Joint Sub-Registrar
Office of Sub-Registrar,
Kancheepuram High Road,
Chengalpattu.
33/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12238 of 2024
P.T. ASHA, J,
kan
W.P.Nos. 12238 & 29740 of 2024
19.11.2024
34/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis