Numbered But Unreturned Sale Deeds Can Still Be Referred For Stamp Valuation, Madras HC Says 15-Day Rule Is Directory

The appellants presented a sale deed for registration. The Sub-Registrar assigned it Document No. 3382 of 2025 but, following a field inspection, issued a notice demanding deficit stamp duty.

The appellants challenged that notice in a writ petition. The Writ Court set aside the notice but permitted the authorities to initiate proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act.

The appellants appealed, arguing that the Writ Court’s order was contradictory and that the reference under Section 47-A was time-barred; they also stated that they had separately challenged the reference proceedings.

Sections 60 and 61 of the Registration Act, 1908, govern the registration certificate, copying of endorsements and certificate into the register, and return of the document; registration is complete under Section 61(2) once the prescribed steps are completed and the document is returned.

Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, permits a registering officer who has reason to believe that the market value has not been truly stated to refer the instrument to the Collector for determination of market value and stamp duty.

Rule 3(5) of the 1968 Rules requires referral within 15 days of registration, but the Court treated that timeline as directory, relying on Inspector General of Registration, Tamil Nadu v. K. Baskaran (2020) 14 SCC 345 and the Division Bench decision in The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) v. Kanchana, 2024 MHC 2243; it also referred to The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) v. M. Alfred, 2017 (2) CWC 896.

The Court distinguished the act of registering a document and assigning it a number from completion of registration under the Registration Act. Because the certificate and other statutory procedures had not been completed and the document had not been returned, the document remained in the registration process.

It held that Section 47-A permits a reference after the document has been registered in that process and does not require completion of registration under Sections 60 and 61 first.

Further, the 15-day period in Rule 3(5) was directory, not mandatory; expiry of that period therefore did not preclude the reference.

The appellants were permitted to participate in the Section 47-A adjudication already commenced and to defend their case before the competent authority.

No costs were awarded.