Skip to main content

Levy of Stamp Duty on Copies of Instruments executed Outside Maharashtra

While upholding the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, a division bench of the Bombay High Court held that imposing of stamp duty on copies of the Instruments executed outside Maharashtra would not amount to Double Taxation. 

While considering a bunch of petitions, the bench comprising Justice A.S Oka and Justice Vibha V. Kankanwadi rejected the argument that Section 7 read with Section 19 in so far as the same apply to the copies of the instruments are not constitutionally valid. 

Before the High Court, the petitioners impugned the constitutional validity of provisions of sections 3, 7 and 19 of the said Act to the extent it levies stamp duty on the copies of the instruments executed outside the State of Maharashtra. 

The petitioners submitted that the words “a copy of the instrument” was not in the Act at the time enactment and the same was subsequently added by the Maharashtra Act No. XVII of 1993. 

According to them, merely because a copy of the deed or a certified or a verified copy thereof is filed in the office of the Registrar of Companies in Mumbai as per the requirement of Section 125 of the Companies Act, it cannot be said that the original deed was received in the State of Maharashtra. It was urged that even the charging section i.e. further, as per Section 3, it is evident that the stamp duty is chargeable, provided an instrument mentioned in Schedule I to the said Act is executed out of the State and is received in the State.

Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/no-double-taxation-levy-stamp-duty-executed-outside-maharashtra-bombay-hc/16948/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Taxscan+%28Top+Stories+%E2%80%93+Taxscan+%7C+Simplifying+Tax+Laws%29

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more

Section 138 NI Act: Omission To Mention Nature Of Debt Or Liability In Notice Does Not Render It Invalid

In Crl.MC.No. 3289 of 2015, B.SURENDRA DAS vs STATE OF KERALA, the court was considering a petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that no demand for payment of the amount of the cheque was made by the complainant as per the notice sent by him and therefore, the notice is defective and the proceedings initiated against the accused pursuant to such notice cannot be sustained. The court observed that there is no statutory requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability. All the complainant has to do is to raise a demand for payment which is a notice to the debtor giving him time to pay but there is no format in which the notice is to be sent.
Post a Comment
Read more