Proceedings of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration

What the proceedings cover

Proceedings D.Dis.No.50049/P1/2014 dated 15 September 2022 concern Sale Deed Document No.8401/2008, registered at the Sub Registrar Office, Guduvanchery. The Gandhi Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited appealed against a recovery certificate issued by the District Registrar, Chennai (South), for Rs.56,38,062 in deficit stamp duty.

The sale deed was executed on 24 September 2008. It recorded consideration of Rs.7,04,75,724 and bore no stamp duty. The claimed exemption was based on G.O.Ms.No.2179 of the Co-operation Department, dated 29 June 1966, which provides remission for instruments relating to the business of a co-operative society and executed by a co-operative society or its member.

Who is affected

Proceedings D.Dis.No.50049/P1/2014 directly concern:

• The Gandhi Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited, the purchaser and appellant.
• M/s. Adarsh Private Limited, the property owner and first executant.
• Mr. R. Ramesh, the agreement holder in possession and second executant.
• The District Registrar, Chennai (South), who issued the recovery certificate.
• The Sub Registrar Office, Guduvanchery, where the deed was registered.

The document is also relevant to co-operative societies claiming stamp duty remission where a company, principal or property owner is not itself a member, even though its managing director, representative or agent is a member.

Key findings and arguments

The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration recorded that:

• M/s. Adarsh Private Limited, the owner and vendor, was not a member of the purchaser society.
• The owner's representative and the second executant's power agent were members of the society.
• An audit by the Accountant General identified loss of revenue from the exemption.
• The society argued that membership of the executant company's managing director made the deed eligible for exemption.
• The society also argued that recovery was time barred because the District Registrar acted six years after registration.
• Relying on cited court decisions, the authority found that the time limit argument was not sustainable.
• The authority considered the distinction between a principal and an agent under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the Powers-Of-Attorney Act, 1882.

Practical limitation

The supplied text ends in the middle of the authority's analysis of acts performed by an agent for a principal. It does not reproduce the final operative direction confirming, reducing or cancelling the deficit stamp duty demand.