Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Jitendra Jain
IL & FS Financial Services Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra Through Government Pleader Original Side, PWD Building, Ground Floor, High Court, Bombay – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks challenge to demand notices under stamp act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details surrounding the interim demand notice and initial requests. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments from both parties on the imposition of penalty. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. court observations on the petitioner's acceptance of duty versus penalty. (Para 17 , 19 , 25) |
| 5. final ruling and dismissal of the petition. (Para 31 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge impugned demand notices dated 23 December 2013 and 31 December 2014 issued under the erstwhile Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (now renamed as ‘the Maharashtra Stamp Act ’). The only prayer pressed and argued before this Court is prayer clause (a) which reads as under:
(emphasis supplied)
2. On 11 April 2008, an order sanctioning scheme of arrangement came to be passed, by the Company Court, under Sections 391 to 394 read with Sections 78 and 100 of the Companies Act, 1956 for the demerger of the “demerged undertaking” of the demerged company into the resulting company.
4. The Respondents, on 16 April 2010, in connection with adjudication of the stamp duty on the above document, sough
Court determined penalties under Maharashtra Stamp Act are mandatory upon failure to pay duty within the specified time frame.
The court ruled that impounding under the Stamp Act is invalid if the instrument is presented for opinion, and penalties cannot be levied without intention to evade duty.
The court clarified the jurisdiction of the court in requiring payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty, and the process for depositing the penalty amount and seeking a refund from the Collector.
Point of law: 1957 Act the adjudicating authorities such as courts, arbitrators, etc., do not have discretion to disobey the legislative command to recover the deficit stamp duty along with the presc....
The Collector has the authority to levy penalty at rates less than ten times the assessed stamp duty under Section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
The demand for deficit stamp duty was barred by limitation under Section 53A of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, as it was raised beyond the 6-year period from the date of the certificate issued in 1995.
Authorities must adhere to the initial deficiency notice and cannot impose additional charges without proper notice and justification.
The correct procedure for determining the true market value of the property and recovering deficit stamp duty in cases of dispute is as per sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 32A of the Maharashtra ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
