Official guidance, Tamil Nadu land law
D.Dis.No.50049/P1/2014, Appeal on Document No.8401/2008, 2022
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, issued D.Dis.No.50049/P1/2014 dated 15 September 2022 concerning an appeal by The Gandhi Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited against recovery of deficit stamp duty on Sale Deed Document No.8401/2008. The proceedings find that the society's time limit objection is not sustainable and examine whether remission under G.O.Ms.No.2179 of the Co-operation Department dated 29 June 1966 applies when the property owner was not a member of the society, but the supplied text does not include the final direction on the appeal.
What the proceedings cover
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, issued D.Dis.No.50049/P1/2014 dated 15 September 2022 under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It concerns an appeal against the District Registrar, Chennai (South), recovery certificate in Order No.10341/2014-2 dated 9 September 2014.
The disputed instrument is Sale Deed Document No.8401/2008, executed on 24 September 2008 and registered at the Sub Registrar Office, Guduvanchery. The claimant was The Gandhi Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Chennai.
Transaction and stamp duty dispute
Sale Deed Document No.8401/2008 recorded consideration of Rs.7,04,75,724. No stamp duty was borne by the deed. The District Registrar determined deficit stamp duty of Rs.56,38,062.
The relevant facts recorded in the proceedings are:
- M/s. Adarsh Private Limited was the owner and first executant.
- Mr. R. Ramesh was described as the agreement holder in possession and second executant.
- The property was sold to The Gandhi Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited after joint development.
- Stamp duty exemption was allowed because representatives involved in execution were members of the purchasing society.
- The property-owning company itself was not a member of the society.
- An Accountant General audit identified revenue loss from the exemption, leading to recovery action.
Exemption and appeal arguments
G.O.Ms.No.2179 of the Co-operation Department dated 29 June 1966 provides stamp duty remission for an instrument relating to the business of a co-operative society when executed by the society or by its member. The District Registrar concluded that the sale deed was ineligible because the vendor and owner was not a member.
The Gandhi Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited argued that the managing director of the owner company was a member, that recovery action taken six years after registration was time barred, and that the society had already sold the property as plots to members.
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority found the time limit argument unsustainable, relying on court decisions concerning time limits for public officials. The proceedings also examine agency and power of attorney principles, under which an agent acts for the principal. The supplied text ends during that analysis and does not contain the final operative decision on the appeal.
This summary is generated from the source document to help you find what is relevant. The PDF above is authoritative. For advice on your own property, use LandLens One or speak to a qualified professional.
Common questions
Does this proceeding apply to every purchase from a co-operative housing society?
No. It concerns Sale Deed Document No.8401/2008 registered at the Sub Registrar Office, Guduvanchery, and the specific claim for stamp duty remission made by The Gandhi Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited.
Why was deficit stamp duty demanded?
The District Registrar found that the vendor and property owner was not a member of the purchasing co-operative society, making the sale deed ineligible for the claimed remission. The deficit stamp duty determined was Rs.56,38,062.
Is membership of a company representative enough to obtain the remission?
The society argued that the managing director's membership was enough, although the owner company was not a member. The supplied text examines agency principles but ends before giving the final conclusion on that issue.
Did the authority accept the argument that recovery was too late?
No. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority found that the argument that proceedings under section 33A were time barred was not sustainable.
