Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner to quash the letter of the 1st Respondent dated 212. 2008, whereby it has been stated that the Sale Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner was chargeable with 8% stamp duty on the market value of the property under Article 23 of the Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp Act since the same has not been issued by Civil/Revenue Court or Collector or Revenue Officer and consequently, to direct the 3rd Respondent to release the said Sale Certificate after refunding a sum of Rs.1,64,895/- to the Petitioner. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner concerned has purchased the property in the auction held by the Authorised Officer of Indian Overseas Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short’ SARFAESI Act) and in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 13 read with Rule 12 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, brought the properties mortgaged to secure the debt due to the Jawahar Mills Limited for sale, on 02.05.2005. One V.S. Murugan, Proprietor of M/s. Hari Tex, 63 Patel Road, Coimbatore, submitted a tender for purchasing the property at the rate of Rs.7,00,70,007/- with a deposit of a sum of Rs.70,00,007/- and the tender was accepted by the Authorised Officer. Subsequently, since the tenderer failed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.6,30,63,000/- within the time stipulated in the tender notice, the Authorised Officer, by a letter dated 23.08.2005 cancelled the acceptance of the tender; challenging the same, the said V.S. Murugan filed W.P. No.37139 of 2005 before this Court against the Indian Overseas Bank, through its Regional Manager, Salem and the Authorised Officer of Indian Overseas Bank, Salem as well as the Jawahar Mills. At the time of hearing of the Writ Petition, the tenderer offered to pay the balance amount of Rs.6,30,63,000/- along with interest at the rate of 19.5% per annum from 13.05.2005 till the date of final payment and accepting the proposal, this Court passed an order directing the tenderer to deposit the said balance sale price along with interest. The total amount payable works out to Rs.8 crores and odd. The total amount payable works out to Rs.8 crores and odd. As per the order of this Court passed in W.P. No.37139 of 2005, the Authorized Officer has to issue the Sale Certificate either in favour of original tenderer, viz., V.S. Murugan or his nominee. 3. It is further stated that the Petitioner, as a nominee of V.S. Murugan, deposited a sum of Rs.1,64,79,393/- to the Authorized Officer towards the value of the properties described in Schedule ‘B’ in the Sale Certificate. In pursuance of the order of this Court made in W.A. No.50 of 2007 dated 12. 2007, the Sale Certificate was issued in favour of the Petitioner and the Petitioner was placed in possession of the property. The Authorised Officer, instead of forwarding a copy of the Sale Certificate to the Petitioner, had forwarded the same to the 3rd Respondent for the purpose of entering in Book-I, who, in turn, instead of scanning the Sale Certificate and making an entry in Book-I maintained by him, called upon the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,64,795/- being the registration fee and a sum of Rs.100/- as computer charges making a total sum of Rs.1,64,895/- and the same was also inadvertently paid by the Petitioner. After realising the mistake committed by him, the Petitioner made an application on 11.08.2008 before the 3rd Respondent stating that the Sale Certificate was not an instrument as defined in section 3 of the Indian Stamp Act, and it does not require registration as required under Section 17 of the Registration Act. But, the 3rd Respondent has passed an order in his Proceedings No.142 of 2007 dated 29.08.2008 stating that the Sale Certificate not having been issued by any Civil or Revenue Court, the exemption provided under Article 18 in Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 is not applicable and thus, demanded 8% stamp duty of Rs.13,18,351/-, failing which, the document would be impounded under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act. Thereafter, the 3rd Respondent impounded the Sale Certificate and forwarded the same along with his report to the 2nd Respondent, who in turn, issued a show cause notice on 211. 2008 calling upon the Petitioner to explain as to why the sum of Rs.13,18,351/- towards the stamp duty and a penalty of Rs.649/- making a total sum of Rs.13,19,000/-should not be collected from him. 2008 calling upon the Petitioner to explain as to why the sum of Rs.13,18,351/- towards the stamp duty and a penalty of Rs.649/- making a total sum of Rs.13,19,000/-should not be collected from him. On receipt of the same, the Petitioner submitted his explanation in the form of objections on 112. 2008, but there was no reply for the same. Hence, he made a representation to the 1st Respondent on 11. 2008, who is the Appellate Authority; but, the 1st Respondent, by an order dated 212. 2008, has rejected his representation holding that since the Sale Certificate was not issued by a Civil/Revenue Court or Collector or Revenue Officer, it cannot be classified as one coming under Article 18, Schedule-I of the Stamp Act and it is chargeable with 8% stamp duty on the market value of the property under Article 23 in Schedule-I of the Stamp Act. Aggrieved over the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that Section 3 of the Indian Stamp Act says that every instrument, except under the exemptions contained in Schedule I, shall be chargeable with duty. So far as the Sale Certificate issued by the Authorized Officer cannot be construed as an instrument chargeable with duty, Schedule I of the Stamp Act deals with the stamp duty on instruments as defined under Section 3 of the Stamp Act. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the judgments reported in: Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Pramod Kumar Gupta, AIR 1991 SC 401 ; Shanti Devi L. Singh v. Tax Recovery Officer, AIR 1991 SC 1880 ; Arumugham, S. & Others v. C.K. Venugopal Chetty & Others, 1994 (1) LW 491 ; Chidambara Manickam, K, v. Shakeena, 2008 (1) CTC 660; AND Shree Vijayalakhsmi Charitable Trust v. The Sub-Registrar, 2009 (5) CTC 15 . and submitted that the Sale Certificate issued by the Authorised Officer cannot be construed as an instrument chargeable with duty and that what was required by the 3rd Respondent is to enter the Sale Certificate in Book-I maintained by him. and submitted that the Sale Certificate issued by the Authorised Officer cannot be construed as an instrument chargeable with duty and that what was required by the 3rd Respondent is to enter the Sale Certificate in Book-I maintained by him. But, by misunderstanding the Sale Certificate as an instrument chargeable with duty as defined under Section 3 of the Stamp Act, the 3rd Respondent has demanded a sum of Rs.1,64,795/- and Rs.100/-as registration fee as well as the computer charges respectively and the Petitioner has also paid the same. Then only the Petitioner realised his mistake and made an Application before him, who in turn, demanded for payment of stamp duty of 8% on the face value of the document and on failure of the said payment, the Sale Certificate was impounded, which resulted in the show cause notice being issued by the 2nd Respondent and the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent. Thus, the learned Counsel submitted that by following the dictum laid down in the various judgments, the impugned order passed by the Respondent dated 212. 2008 has to be quashed and consequently, the 3rd Respondent has to be directed to release the Sale Certificate dated 212. 2007 after screening and entering in Book-I and refund the sum of Rs.1,64,895/-, which was wrongly calculated and demanded by him. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader has placed reliance on Article 18 of Schedule-I and contended that when the Sale Certificate is issued by a Civil or Revenue Court or Collector or other Revenue Officer, it is exempted from levying stamp duty. But, in the instant case, admittedly, the Sale Certificate was issued by an Authorized Officer of a Nationalised Bank. Under such circumstances, the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant in catena of judgments cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case and he prayed that the order passed by the 1st Respondent has to be sustained. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records 7. After hearing the submissions on either side, now the question that arises for consideration is, whether the Sale Certificate issued by the Authorized Officer of the Indian Overseas Bank is chargeable with duty or not. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records 7. After hearing the submissions on either side, now the question that arises for consideration is, whether the Sale Certificate issued by the Authorized Officer of the Indian Overseas Bank is chargeable with duty or not. To decide the matter, it is necessary to look into the principles laid down in the various decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. In the judgment reported in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Pramod Kumar Gupta, AIR 1991 SC 401 , it has been held as follows: “4. The expression “instrument” in Section 147 of the Act has the same connotation as the word has under the Stamp Act, the reference to which has been expressly made. Clause 14 of Section 2 of the Stamp Act gives an inclusive definition of the expression as referring to any document by which any right or liability is purported to be created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded. Clause 10 of the said section states that “conveyance” includes a conveyance on sale and every instrument by which property, whether movable or immovable, is transferred inter vivos. The expression “instrument of sale of immovable property” under Section 147 of the Act must, therefore, mean a document effecting transfer. The title to the property in question has to be conveyed under the document. The document has to be a vehicle for the transfer of the right, title and interest. A document merely stating as a fact that transfer has already taken place cannot be included within this expression. A paper which is recording a fact or is attempting to furnish evidence of an already concluded transaction under which title has already passed cannot be treated to be such an instrument. The question, therefore, is as to whether a Certificate issued by a Court under Rule 94 of Order 21 can be said to be such an instrument so as to attract the provisions of Section 147 of the Act or not. 5. An examination of the relevant provisions of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure will show that the title to the property put on auction-sale passed under the law when the sale is held. 5. An examination of the relevant provisions of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure will show that the title to the property put on auction-sale passed under the law when the sale is held. The owners and certain other interested persons are afforded opportunity under the Code to make a prayer for setting aside the sale on enumerated grounds, and after all such matters are disposed of without disturbing the sale, the sale is confirmed under Rule 92. The relevant part of Rule 92 reads as follows: ”92. Sale when to become absolute or be set aside.—(1) When no Application is made under Rule 89, Rule 90 or Rule 91, or where such Application is made and disallowed, the Court shall make an order confirming the sale, and thereupon the sale shall become absolute.” The stage for issuing a Certificate of Sale arises only thereafter, and Rule 94 states: “94. Certificate to purchaser.— Where a sale of immovable property has become absolute, the Court shall grant a certificate specifying the property sold and the name of the person who at the time of sale is declared to be the purchaser. Such certificate shall bear date the day or which the sale became absolute.” It is manifest that the title passes under the auction-sale by force of law and the transfer becomes final when an order under Rule 92 confirming it is made. By the Certificate issued under Rule 94, the Court is formally declaring the effect of the same and is not extinguishing or creating title. The object of issuance of such a Certificate is to avoid any controversy with respect to the identity of the property sold, and of the purchaser thereof as also the date when the sale becomes absolute. The use of past tense in the rule stating that the same “became” absolute, is consistent with this interpretation. The Certificate, therefore, cannot be termed to be an instrument of sale so as to attract duty under Section 147 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs”. 8. In Shanti Devi L. Singh v. Tax Recovery Officer, AIR 1991 SC 1880 , it has been stated as follows: “9. The Certificate, therefore, cannot be termed to be an instrument of sale so as to attract duty under Section 147 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs”. 8. In Shanti Devi L. Singh v. Tax Recovery Officer, AIR 1991 SC 1880 , it has been stated as follows: “9. There are thus some differences between the two procedures and this aspect has been touched upon in some very early decisions under the Registration Act, 1877: vide, Fatteh Singh v. Daropadi, 1908 Punj Rec Case No.142, Siraj-un-nissa v. Jan Muhammad, 1882 (2) All WN 51, Masarat-un-nissa v. Adit Ram, 1883 ILR 5 All 568 (FB). Reference may also be made to Premier Vegetable P. Ltd. v. State, AIR 1986 Madh Pra 258. We need not, however, consider for the purposes of this case whether filing and registration mean one and the same thing for all purposes and what the legal effect of these differences is. For, though the processes are different, the purchaser at a Court or revenue sale is under no disadvantage because of the lack of registration. The Certificate of Sale itself not being a compulsorily registrable document: vide Section 17(2)(xii), the transfer of title in his favour is not vitiated by the non-registration of the certificate. The copy of the certificate filed in Book No.1 contains all the relevant details. These details are reflected in the indices maintained under Section 55 which are open to inspection to all persons. (We may point out here that Section 55(2) only refers to memoranda filed but it seems clear, particularly in the light of various State amendments, that the index to Book No.1 should also contain the details of copies of document filed by him). These requirements are sufficient to ensure that any person intending to purchase or deal with the property is put on notice about the principal contents of the Certificate of Sale provided he inspects the relevant book and/or index. It is sufficient to say, for the purposes of this case, that all that the Sub-Registrar required to do is to file the copy of the certificate in Book No.1 and no more. He does not have to copy out the certificate or make any other entries in Book No.1”. 9. It is sufficient to say, for the purposes of this case, that all that the Sub-Registrar required to do is to file the copy of the certificate in Book No.1 and no more. He does not have to copy out the certificate or make any other entries in Book No.1”. 9. It has been held in Arumugham, S & Others v. C.K. Venugopal Chetty & Others, 1994 (1) LW 491 as follows: “20. …the position is this: Section 68(1)(a) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act says that no sanction of Court is necessary for the Official Assignee to transfer the property. But in this case, the Court (Clark, J.,) specifically directed the Official Assignee to transfer and convey to the guarantor the interest of the insolvent-2nd Defendant. Thus, the transfer squarely comes under the second category of transfer under Section 2(d) of the Transfer of Property Act. This view is supported by the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Pinnameni Basava Sankaram v. Ganapathi Narasimhulu, 51 MLJ 529 : 25 LW 126 (FB). We are of opinion that this transfer under orders of Court is exempt from registration. In Lakshmi Devi v. Mukand Kanwar, AIR 1965 SC 834 , it was held that nothing in the Transfer of Property Act will apply to the transfers indicated therein and Section 2 (d) of the Transfer of Property Act has an overriding effect and consequently Section 54 of the Act requiring registration will not apply to transfers by orders of Court. Vide also the decisions reported in Gaya Prasad v. Baji Nath, ILR 14 All. 176 and Wazirey v. Mathura Prasad, AIR 1939 Oudh. 55. 21. As against this, learned Counsel for the Appellants cited the following authorities: In Sidheswar Mukherjee v. Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh, AIR 1953 SC 486 : 67 LW 1 (SC) it was held that the purchaser of an undivided share did not acquire any defined share in the property and was entitled only to joint possession from the date of his purchase. It is laid down that the purchaser could work out his right only in a Suit for partition….” From the above said decisions, it is clear that the Sale Certificate issued in a Court sale does not require registration. 10. It is laid down that the purchaser could work out his right only in a Suit for partition….” From the above said decisions, it is clear that the Sale Certificate issued in a Court sale does not require registration. 10. On the contrary, it is contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader that in the said decisions, the Sale Certificates were issued under the different enactments, whereas in the instant case, it has to be decided as to whether the Sale Certificate issued by the Authorized Officer of a bank can be equated to the Sale Certificate issued by a Civil or a Revenue Court. Further, it is contended that in one of the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, namely, in Shanti Devi L. Singh v. Tax Recovery Officer, AIR 1991 SC 1880 , it has been held that the question of levying charge on the Sale Certificate is left open. When that being so, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner by relying upon the catena of judgments cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case. 11. In answer to the said submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon Chidambara Manickam, K. v. Shakeena, 2008 (1) CTC 660, in which the Sale Certificate issued by the Authorized Officer of the Indian Overseas Bank was dealt with. The relevant passage from the said judgment is extracted as follows: “16. In this case, the Authorised Officer of the secured creditor, exercising the power conferred on him by SARFAESI Act, pursuant to the proceedings initiated by him brought the secured assets of the borrowers for sale in public auction, and, in view of the default in repayment of the loan, confirmed the sale in favour of the highest bidder, the Appellant herein and issued the Sale Certificate on 1. 2006. 17. Theratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Arumugham,S. & 2 others v. C.K. Venugopal Chetty & 5 others, 1994 (1) LW 491 , and the Supreme Court in B. Arvind Kumar v. Government of India and Others, MANU/SC/2834/2007, squarely applies to the case on hand and we, therefore, have no incertitude to hold that the sale which took place on 112. 2005 has become final when it is confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser and the auction purchaser is vested with rights in relation to the property purchased in auction on issuance of the Sale Certificate and he has become the absolute owner of the property. Further, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Arumugham, S. & 2 others v. C.K. Venugopal Chetty & 5 others and the Supreme Court in B. Arvind Kumar v. Government of India and Others, referred supra, the Sale Certificate issued in favour of the Appellant does not require any registration in view of Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act as the same has been granted pursuant to the sale held in public auction by the Authorised Officer under SARFAESI Act”. 12. That apart, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner by relying upon the judgment rendered in the case of Shree Vijayalakshmi Charitable Trust v. The Sub-Registrar, 2009 (5) CTC 15 , contended that the learned Single Judge of this Court has categorically held that “Article 18 imposing stamp duty on registration of Sale Certificates would apply only if a party goes for registration and it would not apply when the Sale Certificate is sent to the Registrar for filing as distinguishable from registering. Sale Certificate sent to the Registrar for a filing would not attract Article 18”. By coming to such conclusion, the learned Single Judge has directed the authorities to file the copy of the Sale Certificate dated 212. 2006 in Book-I, because the Sale Certificate needs no registration. 13. Countering the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader has produced a judgment of this Court In Re, The official Liquidator, High Court, Madras, 2010 (2) CTC 113 and contended that in the said judgment, this Court, by taking into consideration the earlier judgments including the judgment reported in Shree Vijayalakshmi Charitable Trust v. The Sub- registrar, 2009 (5) CTC 15 , has elaborately dealt with the differences between processing of filing and processing of registration of the documents and finally come to the conclusion that the Sale Certificate issued by other than the Civil and Revenue Court cannot be exempted from stamp duty. Therefore, in my opinion, the nomenclature given to the document issued by the Authorised Officer may not be relevant for giving exemption from paying stamp duty. Therefore, in my opinion, the nomenclature given to the document issued by the Authorised Officer may not be relevant for giving exemption from paying stamp duty. Under such circumstances, no fault could be found in the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent holding that since the Sale Certificate was not issued by a Civil or Revenue Court, Collector or other Revenue Officer, it cannot be classified as one coming under Article 18 Schedule-I of the Stamp Act. The relevant passages of the said judgment are as follows: “38. Section 89(2) and (4) of the Registration Act, on which reliance is placed in Shree Vijayalakshmi Charitable Trust, does not also say that the Sub-Registrar is duty bound to ignore the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and file a copy of the Certificate of Sale issued by the Court or the Revenue Officer, as the case may be, in his Book No.1. Section 89 of the Registration Act , reads as follows: “89. (1) Every Officer granting a loan under the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883, shall send a copy of his order to the Registering Officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the land to be improved or of the land to be granted as collateral security, is situate, and such registering officer shall file the copy in his Book No.1. .(2) Every Court granting a Certificate of Sale of immovable property under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall 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 officer shall file the copy in his Book No.1. (3) Every officer granting a loan under the Agriculturists’ Loans Act, 1884, shall send a copy of any instrument whereby immovable property is mortgaged for the purpose of securing the repayment of the loan, and if any such property is mortgaged for the same purpose in the order granting the loan, a copy also of that order, to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the property so mortgaged is situate, and such Registering officer shall file the copy or copies, as the case may be, in his Book No.1. .(4) Every Revenue Officer granting a Certificate of Sale to the purchaser of immovable property sold by public auction shall send a copy of the certificate to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the property comprised in the certificate is situate, and such officer shall file the copy in his Book No.1.” In its application to the State of Tamil Nadu, Section 89 has been amended to include 3 sub-sections viz., sub-sections (5), (6) and (7). Similarly, by a State Amendment, Section 89-A has been inserted, empowering the Government to make Rules for filing copies of documents. By Section 89-A (2-A), every Court passing an order effecting or raising an attachment of immovable property, should communicate a copy giving details of the property and the Registering Officer is obliged to file the same in Book-I. The Registering Officer is thus obliged to perform a crucial role. But the role is not restricted to the Registration Act alone. He is also obliged to perform a role under the Indian Stamp Act. Therefore, if an instrument is presented to him for registration, he is expected to examine whether proper stamp duty as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act has been paid or not. 39. In Shanti Devi L. Singh v. Tax Recovery Officer and Others, 1990 (3) SCC 605 , the Apex Court was concerned with a case where two properties were sold by the Tax Recovery Officer of the Income Tax Department, in a public auction, for realisation of the income tax dues of their owners. Upon confirmation of sale, the Tax Recovery Officer issued necessary certificates of sale in favour of the highest bidders. The copies of the Sale Certificates were forwarded by the Tax Recovery Officer to the concerned Sub-Registrar, for making necessary entries in Book No.1, in accordance with Section 89 (2) and (4) of the Registration Act, 1908. The Sub-Registrar and the Collector of stamps refused to have the property registered, unless the requisite stamp duty was paid on the Certificates of Sale. Even the Tax Recovery Officer took a stand that no stamp duty was payable. But the Sub-Registrar refused to budge in, forcing the auction purchasers to file Writ Petitions as was done in the case of Shree Vijayalakshmi Charitable Trust. Even the Tax Recovery Officer took a stand that no stamp duty was payable. But the Sub-Registrar refused to budge in, forcing the auction purchasers to file Writ Petitions as was done in the case of Shree Vijayalakshmi Charitable Trust. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the Delhi High Court and the issue landed up before the Supreme Court. .40. Three questions were formulated for consideration, by the Supreme Court in para 5 of its decision, which read as follows: .“5. On the above facts, three different and separate questions arise for considerations: (1) What is the action to be taken by the Sub-Registrar when the copy of a Certificate of Sale is forwarded to him by the TRO? (2) Is the vendee in a sale by the TRO entitled to ask the TRO (sic Sub-Registrar) to make entries regarding the transfer in his records on the basis of the copy of the Certificate of Sale sent to him by the TRO? (3) What is the procedure to be followed by the Sub-Registrar when the original Certificate of Sale is produced before him by the vendee? .41. On the first question, the Supreme Court held that by virtue of sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 89, whenever a Certificate of Sale is issued by a Court or a Revenue Officer, a copy of such certificate is to be sent to the Registering Officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the property is situate. Upon receipt of the copy of the Certificate of Sale, the Registering Officer shall file the copy in his Book No.1. Therefore, the Court held on issue No.1 that when a copy of the Certificate of Sale is received by a Registering Officer, he should act in terms of Section 89(4) and file the same in Book No.1. 42. The second question as framed for consideration by the Supreme Court in Shanti Devi L. Singh, in paragraph 5 of its decision was slightly different from the second question actually taken up for consideration in paragraph 7. It was whether the filing of the copy of the Certificate of Sale in Book No.1 within the meaning of Section 89 tantamounted to the registration of the document under the Registration Act or whether the concept of filing a copy of the Certificate of Sale in Book No.1 was different from the concept of registration. It was whether the filing of the copy of the Certificate of Sale in Book No.1 within the meaning of Section 89 tantamounted to the registration of the document under the Registration Act or whether the concept of filing a copy of the Certificate of Sale in Book No.1 was different from the concept of registration. On this aspect, the Supreme Court found that the registration of a document under the Act is conditional on the fulfilment of several requirements laid down in Sections 32 to 35. Once a document is admitted for registration, the Registering Officer is bound to follow the procedure laid down in Sections 51 to 67. 43. After tracing the procedure for registration of a document, laid down in the Registration Act, the Supreme Court noted in paragraph 8 of its decision, the difference between the process of filing and the process of registration. They are as follows: “But there appear to be vital difference between the two processes: .(1) It is the original of a document that is registered whereas only copies or memoranda are filed: .(ii) The executant of a document which is required to be registered, has to present it for registration and go through the attendant and subsequent processes described above. A copy to be filed under Section 89 or memoranda that are filed under Section 64 to 66 is simply transmitted to the concerned Sub-Registrar for being filed. Apparently, the procedure of presentation is dispensed with in regard to the latter because they are issued by Public Authorities discharging their official duties. (iii) Additional particulars relevant to a document admitted to registration need to be got endorsed thereon from time to time as contemplated in Sections 58 and 59 but this rule does not apply to a copy or memorandum filed under the Act. .(iv) When a document is registered, the entirety of the document has to be copied out into the relevant book and the original document returned to the person who presents the document with necessary endorsements. This requirement is absent in the case of a copy or memorandum which is just filed. .(v) Where a document is registered, a Certificate of Registration has to be issued which will be admissible to prove the due registration of the document.” 44. This requirement is absent in the case of a copy or memorandum which is just filed. .(v) Where a document is registered, a Certificate of Registration has to be issued which will be admissible to prove the due registration of the document.” 44. After pointing out the above differences between the process of filling and the process of registration, then Court held in para 9 that though the processes are different, the purchaser at a Court or Revenue sale is under no disadvantage because of lack of registration, in view of the fact that under Section 17(2)(xii), the Certificate of Sale is not a compulsorily registrable document and consequently the transfer of title in his favour will not be vitiated by non registration. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that what the Sub-Registrar is required to do was only to file the copy of the certificate in Book No.1 and not to copy out the certificate or make any other entries in Book No.1. This, in the opinion of the Court, would be sufficient to put an intending purchaser of the very same property, on notice of the auction sale conducted by the Court or Revenue. 45. After answering the modified second issue as above, the Supreme Court took up for consideration another question in para 10 of its decision. This question was whether the Certificate of Sale was liable to stamp duty and if so, what the consequences were. On this question, even at the threshold, the Court upheld the view of the Delhi High Court, with reference to Sections 3 and 29 (f) read with Article 18 under Schedule I of the Stamp Act, that in the case of a Certificate of Sale, necessary stamp duty is to be paid by the auction purchaser, unless by a contract to the contrary, the liability is shifted to the Government. After giving a preliminary finding to the said effect in para 10 of its judgment, the Apex Court made certain important observations in para 11. Therefore, it is reproduced as follows: “11. There are two provisions in the Stamp Act which provide for the adjudication of stamp duty. After giving a preliminary finding to the said effect in para 10 of its judgment, the Apex Court made certain important observations in para 11. Therefore, it is reproduced as follows: “11. There are two provisions in the Stamp Act which provide for the adjudication of stamp duty. Under Section 31, it is open to the executants of any document, at any stage but within the time limit set out in Section 32, to produce a document before the Collector of Stamps and require him to adjudicate on the question whether the document should bear any stamp duty. The Collector thereupon may adjudicate the stamp duty himself or refer the matter to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of the State. In turn, it is open to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of refer the matter to the High Court for an authoritative decision (Sections 32 and 56). This procedure could have been followed by the Petitioners if they wished to seek an answer to the question whether the Certificate of Sale is liable to stamp duty but they have not done it and the time limit under Section 32 has run out. The other provision that may become applicable is Section 33. Under this section, if any document (and this includes a Certificate of Sale) is presented to the Registrar for registration and the Registrar is of opinion that it is a document which should bear stamp duty but that it has not been stamped, it is his duty to impound the document and send it on to the Collector of Stamps for necessary adjudication (Section 38). This contingency has also not happened. The third contingency, also provided for in Section 33 is when a party wishes to rely upon the Certificate of Sale as a piece of evidence before a Court or an authority entitled to take evidence. Such Court or authority will also have to impound the document and shall not admit the same in evidence unless the stamp duty chargeable and the stipulated penalty are paid. This situation has not arisen so far but may arise at some time in future. It is unnecessary to anticipate the same and decide the issue. We shall therefore leave the issue of stamp duty to be adjudicated upon in the normal course, as and when found necessary, and express no views thereon at this stage.” .46. This situation has not arisen so far but may arise at some time in future. It is unnecessary to anticipate the same and decide the issue. We shall therefore leave the issue of stamp duty to be adjudicated upon in the normal course, as and when found necessary, and express no views thereon at this stage.” .46. Thus the Court made it clear in para 11 of its decision that when a document including a Certificate of Sale is presented to the Registrar for registration and the Registrar is of the opinion that the document was liable to stamp duty, he is entitled to impound the document and send it to the Collector of Stamps for adjudication. The Court further pointed out that by virtue of Section 33 of the Stamp Act, a Court or authority will also have the power to impound the document, as and when produced as a piece of evidence and that it shall not admit the document in evidence, unless the stamp duty chargeable and the stipulated penalty are paid. .47. After steering clear of the doubt with regard to the liability to pay stamp duty even on a Certificate of Sale, the Supreme Court took up for consideration in para 12 of its decision, the question as to whether the Sub-Registrar has no jurisdiction to refuse registration, on the ground that the document (Certificate of Sale) is insufficiently stamped. On this issue, the Court held as follows: .“We should, however, like to deal with a contention raised in the grounds that even if the Certificate of Registration is sought to be presented for registration by the Petitioners, the Sub-Registrar has no jurisdiction to refuse registration on the ground that the document is insufficiently stamped, As already pointed out, Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act makes it clear that the Certificate of Sale issued in a Court sale or by a Revenue Officer does not need registration. (Though this provision, like Section 89, relates only to a Certificate of Sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil Court or Revenue Officer, for the same reasons as have been set out earlier, we think that the certificate issued by the TRO is also covered by this provision). (Though this provision, like Section 89, relates only to a Certificate of Sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil Court or Revenue Officer, for the same reasons as have been set out earlier, we think that the certificate issued by the TRO is also covered by this provision). It is, therefore, clear that it is not obligatory on the purchaser of property in a tax recovery 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 provisions in this regard.” 48. Thus, it is very clear that the Registration Officer has a duty to comply with the relevant statutory provisions, whenever a Certificate of Sale is presented to him for registration. The relevant statutory provisions, which a Registering Officer is obliged to take note of and also comply with, are not to be traced merely to the Registration Act, but also to be traced to the India Stamp Act. Interestingly, the decisions in B. Arvind Kumar and Shanthi Devi L. Singh were by 2 member Benches of the Honourable Apex Court. But the earlier decision of the 3 member Bench in Raghunath v. Kedar Nath, 1969 (1) SCC 497 with particular reference to the amendment to Section 49 of the Registration Act, was not brought to the notice of the Court in both those cases. Therefore, the decision in Raghunath still holds the field”. 14. A reading of the above judgment would reveal that the purchaser of a property by sale through Civil or Revenue Court has no disadvantage because of lack of registration in view of the fact that under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, Certificate of Sale is not a compulsory registrable document and consequently, the transfer of title in his favour will not be vitiated by non-registration. But so far as the certificate issued by the Authorised Officer is concerned, it cannot be equated with the certificate issued by the Revenue or Civil Court. But so far as the certificate issued by the Authorised Officer is concerned, it cannot be equated with the certificate issued by the Revenue or Civil Court. As contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the nomenclature given to the document issued by the Authorised Officer may not be relevant for giving exemption from paying the stamp duty since the Sale Certificate issued by the Authorised Officer will not be covered by Article 18 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act. In my considered opinion, the judgment delivered by this Court in In Re, The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras, 2010 (2) CTC 113 by considering the earlier judgments, has set forth the correct position of law. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the 1st Respondent. In fine, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.