9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether section 7 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 is competent to levy stamp duty on the copy of an instrument. Analysis: The judgment delves into the issue of whether the Superintendent of Stamp had the authority to levy stamp duty on a copy of an instrument under section 7 of the Act of 1958. The petitioners argued that the legislative competence was lacking as the original instrument was never presented. They contended that a copy of the instrument is not a 'document' as per legal definitions. The court examined the provisions of the Act, specifically section 3 which outlines the instruments chargeable with duty, and section 7 which deals with payment of higher duty on certain instruments. The court analyzed the scheme of the Act, emphasizing that section 7 aims to prevent stamp duty evasion by ensuring that on the arrival of a copy of the instrument in the state, the original instrument is chargeable as if received in the state. The judgment highlighted the significance of recovering only the difference in duty between states when an instrument is registered in another state but related to matters in the current state. The court rejected the argument that merely receiving a copy of an instrument should not be a chargeable event, stating that filing a copy under the Companies Act is a legal requirement, not a formality. The judgment also examined the Companies Act's requirement for filing instruments or verified copies with the Registrar, emphasizing the legal implications of non-compliance. It noted that the filing of a copy is essential for establishing charges against liquidators and creditors. The court highlighted that the copy of the instrument, when duly verified, holds the character of an instrument. The petitioners' counsel acknowledged that a certified copy of the original instrument is indeed an instrument, leading to the court's decision that the petitioners were liable to pay the stamp duties as ordered by the Superintendent of Stamp, Maharashtra. In conclusion, the petitions were dismissed, and the rules discharged, affirming the liability of the petitioners to pay the stamp duties as directed by the Superintendent of Stamp, Maharashtra.
|
