Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (6) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed authorized share capital under the Indian Stamp (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2007 ('Act'). 2. The Petitioner, a public limited company, was incorporated on 5-3-1992 with an authorized share capital comprising of ten thousand equity shares of Rs. 100 each and ten thousand redeemable non-cumulative preferential shares of Rs. 100 each. On 29-12-2008 the Petitioner increased its authorized share capital from Rs. 3.50 crores to Rs. 6 crores. Subsequently, by an order dated 9-10-2009 passed by this Court the authorized share capital was increased from Rs. 6 crores to Rs. 8.50 crores. The Petitioner paid stamp duty on the increase in the authorized share capital. On 15-1-2010, the Petitioner further increased its authorized share capital from Rs. 8. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t paid by the Petitioner, the amount of Rs. 58,25,000 deposited with the ROC will stand forfeited. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition an order dated 11-8-2010 was passed by Respondent No. 4, the operative portion of which reads as under : "As per document submitted by the company it has been observed that the Authorized share capital of the company has been increased from 8.50 crores to Rs. 125 crores in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 22nd December 2009. As per Article 10(a) and (b ) of Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, stamp duty chargeable on the authorized capital of the company is 0.15 per cent of the authorized share capital with a monetary ceiling of Rs. 25 lakhs. Thus, the stamp duty chargeable on t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mention any duty payable in respect of increase in the authorised share capital. It admits of a strict construction. The words 'in other cases' occurring in clause (b) of Article 10 of Schedule IA refers to the cases in which original authorized share capital exceeds Rs. one lakh at the time of incorporation and registration of the company and not to the subsequent increased authorized share capital. This distinction was clearly understood by other State Legislatures. A reference was drawn to the Article 10 of the Indian Stamp Act as amended by State legislatures of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh. For instance, Article 10 as amended by the Madhya Pradesh State Legislature reads as under : Article 10. Articles of Association o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd to respect the decision in that regard. Reliance is placed by Ms. Dhir on the decisions in Avinash Kaur v. Beli Ram ILR 1970 Delhi 651 and R.N. Vasudeva v. Union of India 12 [1976] DLT 109. 10. Having considered the above submissions, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner ought to succeed. The order dated 11-8-2010 of the Collector of Stamps proceeds on the footing that under Article 10(a) and (b ) of Schedule IA of the Act, stamp duty chargeable on the authorized capital of the company is 0.15 per cent of the authorized share capital with a monetary ceiling of Rs. 25 lakhs. There is no provision for charging stamp duty on "increase" in the authorised share capital. Nevertheless Respondent No. 4 has proceeded to determine the st .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter." (p. 661) 12. The Supreme Court in CWT v. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana [1998] 1 SCC 384/[1997] 95 Taxman 143 held as under : "The rule of construction of a charging section is that before taxing any person, it must be shown that he falls within the ambit of the charging section by clear words used in the section. No one can be taxed by implication. A charging section has to be construed stri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates