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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more