JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition challenging the validity of the notice dated 16.08.2010 of the respondent, by which, the respondent called upon the petitioner pay the requisite stamp duty on the document dated 14.05.2010 executed by the Official Liquidator, High Court in their favour. 2. The petitioner, a charitable Trust and is providing free education to the poor students, would contend that they have participated in the auction conducted by the Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras in respect of the land measuring 23.338 acres of vacant land situated at Jadayampalayam Village, Alagambu, Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District, pursuant to the order dated 27.04.2010 made in C.A. Nos. 368, 1717 of 2009 and 625 of 2010 in C.P. No. 17 of 2010 and they were declared as the success bidder. The sale was confirmed in favour of the petitioner at Rs.7,15,00,000/- and the petitioner also paid the entire amount and received the sale certificate from the Official Liquidator on 14.05.2010. The copy of the sale certificate was sent to the office of the respondent so as to enable them to enter it in the Book-I register as per Section 89 of the Registration Act. Instead of registering the sale certificate, the respondent sent the impugned order dated 16.08.2010 demanding stamp duty and registration charges so as to comply with the request of the Liquidator for entering the sale particulars in Book I Register. 3. Mr. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the sale certificate does not require any registration as per Section 17 (2) (XII) of the Registration Act, 1908 and therefore it does not attract any stamp duty. While so, the impugned demand made by the respondent is contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act and therefore he prayed for allowing the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision of this Court rendered in (Shree Vijayalakshmi Charitable Trust vs. The Sub-Registrar, Erode District) (2009) 5 CTC 15 wherein, this Court, in the case of the very same petitioner, held that the Court auction sale certificate sent to the registration department for entering it in Book I would not attract stamp duty. Therefore, relying on the above decision, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent has no power and jurisdiction to demand stamp duty in view of Section 17 (2) (xii) and Section 89 (2) of the Registration Act. 4. Mr. K.V. Dhanapalan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, relying on the counter affidavit of the respondent, would contend that as per the decision of this Court reported in (In Re., The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras) ( 2010 (2) CTC 113 the respondent is empowered and entitled to seek for stamp duty. In this decision, the order passed by this Court reported in (Shree Vijayalakshmi Charitable Trust vs. The Sub-Registrar, Erode District) (2009) 5 CTC 15 , which arise out of the case filed by the very same petitioner herein, was also referred and distinguished. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, as per the orders of the various High Courts in India, any sale deed executed by the Official Liquidator on behalf of the company in liquidation, would be one under Section 457 (2) (i) of the Companies Act. Further, the Official Liquidator acts only as an agent of the company and the sale certificate issued by the Official Liquidator cannot be construed as the one issued by a Revenue or Civil Court giving exemption to payment of stamp duty. In other words, Article 18 of Schedule I to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 exempts payment of stamp duty on a sale certificate only if it is issued by a revenue or a civil Court and that cannot be equated with a sale certificate issued by the Official Liquidator on behalf of the company in liquidation, as an agent. No doubt, the sale certificate need not be registered and it is not a compulsorily registerable document. But when the certificate has to be registered, stamp duty is payable by the person in whose favour such sale certificate was issued. Therefore, the sale certificate issued by the Official Liquidator in favour of the petitioner cannot be covered by Article 18 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act and the certificate in question can only be construed as a sale deed warranting payment of stamp duty. 5. I heard the counsel for both sides. Therefore, the sale certificate issued by the Official Liquidator in favour of the petitioner cannot be covered by Article 18 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act and the certificate in question can only be construed as a sale deed warranting payment of stamp duty. 5. I heard the counsel for both sides. The only point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the impugned notice issued by the respondent is without jurisdiction and the respondent is authorised to demand payment of stamp duty as a condition precedent for registering the sale certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the Official Liquidator, pursuant to the order dated 27.04.2010 made in C.A. Nos. 368, 1717 of 2009 and 625 of 2010 in C.P. No. 17 of 2010 by this Court. 6. The main contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that when the Official Liquidator had issued the sale certificate in favour of the petitioner, for the purpose of registering the sale certificate with the registering authorities or for entering it in Book I, the respondent has no authority to collect stamp duty treating it as a sale deed. Therefore, the core question for determination in this writ petition is whether the sale certificate issued in favour of the petitioner has to be treated as a sale deed which would entitle the respondent to demand stamp duty payable by the petitioner. 7. In this connection, the decision of this Court reported in (Shree Vijayalakshmi Charitable Trust vs. The Sub-Registrar, Erode District) (2009) 5 CTC 15 , which arise out of the case filed by the very same petitioner, requires to be considered. This decision was relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that the impugned demand made by the respondent is unsustainable. The facts in that case are the petitioner purchased property through court auction and the Official Liquidator has issued sale certificate in favour of the petitioner and a copy of the same was also sent to the registering authorities for entering it in Book I. The respondent/registering authority refused registration and demanded payment of stamp duty. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed WP No. 17833 of 2009 which culminated in the order reported in (Shree Vijayalakshmi Charitable Trust vs. The Sub-Registrar, Erode District) (2009) 5 CTC 15 . Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed WP No. 17833 of 2009 which culminated in the order reported in (Shree Vijayalakshmi Charitable Trust vs. The Sub-Registrar, Erode District) (2009) 5 CTC 15 . In that decision, this Court, relying upon Section 17 (2) (xii) and Section 89 of the Registration Act, held that the respondent has no power and jurisdiction to demand stamp duty on the sale certificate issued by the Official Liquidator for entering it in Book 8. Subsequent to this decision reported in (Shree Vijayalakshmi Charitable Trust vs. The Sub-Registrar, Erode District) (2009) 5 CTC 15 (WP No. 17833 of 2009 dated 07.09.2009) two other decisions have been rendered by this Court (i) (In Re., The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras) ( 2010 (2) CTC 113 and (ii) (Cenney Hotels Private Limited. Through its Managing Director, Salem v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and others) (2010) (4) CTC 802. 9. The decision in (In Re., The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras) ( 2010 (2) CTC 113 arise out of a company application. The question raised in the Company Application was whether the sale certificate issued by the Official Liquidator will attract stamp duty at the time of registration or entering it in Book I. This question was considered by this Court and held that the decision to levy stamp duty and transfer of any immovable property depends upon the application of Stamp Act, Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act. It was also held that the sale certificate issued by one who is neither a Civil or Revenue Officer would not fall under either of the provisions namely Section 17 (2) (xii) or Section 89 of the Registration Act. Similarly, the Official Liquidator is neither a Civil or Revenue Officer. The Official Liquidator can issue a sale certificate or sale deed, but in any event, it should be made known to the purchaser that he is obliged to pay stamp duty for the sale value, calculated at the rate prescribed in Article 18 read with Article 23 of Schedule I to the Stamp Act, in the case of a certificate of sale or at the rate prescribed in Article 23 in the case of a Sale Deed. The Official Liquidator shall also put the auction purchaser on notice that if they do not pay stamp duty and do not choose to have the document registered, it may become inadmissible in evidence, in view of section 35 of the Stamp Act and Section 49 of the Registration Act Henceforth, the Official Liquidator shall also indicate in the Tender Notifications and Forms that necessary stamp duty is payable as per the provisions of Article 18 read with Article 23 of Schedule I to the Stamp Act, by referring to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court. In this decision (In Re., The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras) ( 2010 (2) CTC 113 , the decision of this Court reported in (Shree Vijayalakshmi Charitable Trust vs. The Sub-Registrar, Erode District) (2009) 5 CTC 15 was also considered by the learned Judge. In Para Nos. 30, 31, 39, 49 and 58 of the decision (In Re., The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras) ( 2010 (2) CTC 113 , it was held as follows:- 30. Therefore, by virtue of the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, a "Certificate of Sale" issued by a Revenue or Civil Court or Collector or Revenue Officer is chargeable with duty prescribed in Article 18 under Schedule I. A deed of conveyance, whether titled as a "deed of sale" or otherwise, is chargeable with duty prescribed in Article 23. A combined reading of Articles 18 and 23 would show that if the purchase money of a property sold by public auction exceeds Rs.50/-, the same duty is payable, irrespective of whether it is a certificate of sale or a deed of conveyance/sale. The person by whom such duty is payable is also spelt out in Section 29(f) of the Act, leaving no room for any doubt that stamp duty is certainly payable even on a certificate of sale. 31. Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, makes it clear that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties, authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any Public Officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped. The proviso to Section 35 makes exception to 5 categories of instruments, from the operation of the main provision. The proviso to Section 35 makes exception to 5 categories of instruments, from the operation of the main provision. A certificate of sale does not fall under any of these exceptions listed in the proviso to Section 35. Therefore, irrespective of and de hors the provisions of the Registration Act, a certificate of sale issued to the purchaser of a property sold by public auction, by a Civil or Revenue Court or Collector or other Revenue Officer, is required to be stamped as per Article 18 (read with Article 23 if the purchase money exceeds Rs.50/-) of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act. 39. In Shanti Devi L. Singh vs. 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. The writ petitions were dismissed by the Delhi High Court and the issue landed up before the Supreme Court. 49. The provisions of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act are not in pari materia. The Stamp Act is a purely fiscal Act providing for the payment of Government revenue, while the Registration Act has as its objective, the conservation of evidence, assurance of title, publicity of documents and prevention of fraud. The provisions of the Registration Act, do not have overriding effect upon the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act or even the Transfer of Property Act. There is no non abstante clause in Section 17 (2) of the Registration Act. The provisions of the Registration Act, do not have overriding effect upon the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act or even the Transfer of Property Act. There is no non abstante clause in Section 17 (2) of the Registration Act. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that a certificate of sale need not be stamped in accordance with the Indian Stamp Act merely because it does not require compulsory registration by virtue of Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act. It is equally incorrect to say that the Sub Registrar is obliged to shut his eyes to the provisions of the Stamp Act, merely because of the obligations imposed under Section 89(2) and (4) of the Act. 58. Similarly, the term "Civil Officer" is defined in "Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Iyer" as "any Officer holding appointment under the Government except in the Military or Naval Service, whether the duties are Executive or Judicial or in the highest or the lowest departments". The term "Civil Officer" has to be understood only in the context of "civilians" as opposed to persons in Military Service. It is doubtful, if an Official Liquidator can be equated to a Civil Officer or a Revenue Officer, so as to make the certificate of sale issued by him come within the purview of Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908. I do not think that an Official Liquidator can be considered to be a "Revenue Officer" within the meaning of Section 89(4) since he is not collecting revenue for the Government. Even assuming for the sake of argument that he can be equated, Article 18 under Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp Act makes a certificate of sale issued by a Revenue Officer also liable to stamp duty. The term "Revenue Officer" appearing both in Article 18 under Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp Act and also in sections 17(2)(xii) and 89(4) of the Registration Act, are to be given the same meaning and to be construed to indicate the same person. 10. The term "Revenue Officer" appearing both in Article 18 under Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp Act and also in sections 17(2)(xii) and 89(4) of the Registration Act, are to be given the same meaning and to be construed to indicate the same person. 10. In the above decision (In Re., The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras) ( 2010 (2) CTC 113 , this Court further held that when once if it is found that the sale by the Official Liquidator is not a transfer by operation of law or by or in execution of a decree of Court, then it would not fall within the exception under Section 2(d) of the Transfer of Property Act. If it would not fall within the parameters of Section 2(d), then the second paragraph of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, requiring every sale of tangible immovable property for Rs.100/- and more to be made only by a registered instrument, would automatically apply. Therefore the sale has to comply with the statutory requirement under the second paragraph of Section 54. The above decision in (In Re., The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras) ( 2010 (2) CTC 113 was rendered by this Court pursuant to a clarification made by the Official Liquidator as to whether he must execute a Sale deed or Sale Certificate, as and when the property of a Company in liquidation is brought to sale in public auction. This Court, by referring to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in (Raghunath and others vs. Kedar Nath) (1969) (1) Supreme Court Cases 497, had ultimately held in para Nos. 59 and 60 as follows:- "59. Therefore, the only conclusion that one can draw by a combined reading of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908 is that by whatever name the instrument is called (whether certificate of sale or Sale Deed), the instrument is chargeable with stamp duty, under Article 18 read with Article 23 of Schedule I to the Stamp Act. While the Official Liquidator can leave the choice to the auction purchaser to choose the title to or the nomenclature of the document, neither he nor the purchaser has any choice with regard to the liability to pay stamp duty. 60. While the Official Liquidator can leave the choice to the auction purchaser to choose the title to or the nomenclature of the document, neither he nor the purchaser has any choice with regard to the liability to pay stamp duty. 60. In view of the above, this application is disposed of, with a direction to the Official Liquidator to issue a certificate of sale or execute a Sale Deed, as per the choice of the auction purchaser. But while doing so, the Official Liquidator shall indicate that the auction purchaser is obliged to pay stamp duty for the sale value, calculated at the rate prescribed in Article 18 read with Article 23 of Schedule I to the Stamp Act, in the case of a certificate of sale or at the rate prescribed in Article 23 in the case of a Sale Deed. The Official Liquidator shall also put the auction purchaser on notice that if they do not pay stamp duty and do not choose to have the document registered, it may become inadmissible in evidence, in view of section 35 of the Stamp Act and Section 49 of the Registration Act Henceforth, the Official Liquidator shall also indicate in the Tender Notifications and Forms that necessary stamp duty is payable as per the provisions of Article 18 read with Article 23 of Schedule I to the Stamp Act. 11. The above decision in (In Re., The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras) ( 2010 (2) CTC 113 was also followed by this Court in the decision reported in (Cenney Hotels Private Limited. Through its Managing Director, Salem v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and others) (2010) (4) CTC 802. In that case, the question arose for consideration was whether the sale certificate issued by the authorised officer under the SARFAESI Act will attract stamp duty or not and it was held that the sale certificate issued by the authorised officer under the SARFAESI Act cannot be equated with the certificate issued by the Civil or Revenue Court. In para-14, it was held as follows:- "14. In para-14, it was held as follows:- "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), 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. But as 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 view, 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 first respondent. 12. In view of the subsequent decisions of this Court reported in (In Re., The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras) ( 2010 (2) CTC 113 and (Cenney Hotels Private Limited. Through its Managing Director, Salem v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and others) (2010) (4) CTC 802 and in the light of the decision rendered by a three Judge Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in (Raghunath and others vs. Kedar Nath) (1969) (1) Supreme Court Cases 497, I hold that the order passed by the respondent, which is impugned in this writ petition, is valid and in accordance with law. The Official Liquidator cannot be construed as an Officer of a Court and the sale certificate issued by the Official Liquidator on behalf of the company in liquidation, in favour of the petitioner, cannot get exempted from payment of stamp duty at the time of registration. Only a sale or transfer made by the revenue or Civil Court can be exempted from payment of registration charges. Only a sale or transfer made by the revenue or Civil Court can be exempted from payment of registration charges. Under those circumstances, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision reported in (Shree Vijayalakshmi Charitable Trust vs. The Sub-Registrar, Erode District) (2009) 5 CTC 15 will not be of any help to the petitioner to succeed in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.