Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 15 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: C. Vijayakumar; Respondent: The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation (THC), Thiruvallur Branch.
  • Petition filed under Article 226 seeking certiorari and mandamus to obtain records of THC:AMB:LAO:2023-24 dated 07.03.2024 and to refund Rs 11,56,400 (penalty plus 18% GST) demanded for delayed execution of a sale deed.
  • Background: Petitioner was successful bidder in a public auction by THC for land, building, plant and machinery of a defaulting borrower. Auction terms required registration of sale deed within 30 days of full payment and clearance of sales tax arrears of Rs 57,84,767.
  • Petitioner applied on 25.08.2010 to settle tax arrears under Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2010; application rejected. Litigation (W.P. Nos.817‑823 of 2011) concluded on 16.02.2023.
  • After litigation, petitioner requested deed execution; THC issued communication on 07.03.2024 demanding penalty charges and GST before executing a fresh sale deed.
  • Petitioner argued auction conditions did not authorize penalty; cited A. Subramaniam case. Respondent argued non‑compliance with auction conditions; cited R.J. Kumar case.

Court Reasoning

  • Court noted auction required both deed registration within 30 days and clearance of tax arrears; petitioner chose to pursue settlement instead of clearing arrears, causing a delay of over thirteen years.
  • Delay directly attributable to petitioner; respondent could have cancelled sale but instead imposed penalty as per its circulars.
  • Petitioner was previously informed of penalty, did not contest, paid Rs 11,56,400 including GST, and obtained deed registration on 22.03.2024 (Document No.1853 of 2024, Sub‑Registrar, Manavalanagar, Tiruvallur District).
  • No evidence that payment was made under protest; the factual matrix differs from A. Subramaniam where demand was contested before payment.
  • Court found no arbitrariness or illegality in respondent’s action; therefore, no ground for interference under Article 226.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed; no order as to costs.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Penalty Enforcement