SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(HP) 12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, JJ.
M/s Sozin Flora Pharma LLP - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and another - Respondents
CWP No.4019of 2020
Decided on : 07-01-2021

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Mr. Vikas Rathore & Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Additional Advocates General and Ms. Seema Sharma, Mr. Bhupinder Thakur & Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocates General.

The main legal point established is that upon conversion of a partnership firm to LLP, the automatic vesting of assets in the LLP does not require payment of stamp duty and registration fee, as no separate instrument of transfer is necessary.

Headnote:

Stamp Duty - Conversion of Partnership Firm to Limited Liability Partnership - Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Indian Partnership Act, Limited Liability Partnership Act 2008 - Section 118 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Partnership Firm, converted itself to a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) and sought to change its name in the revenue record. The authorities directed the petitioner to deposit Stamp Duty and Registration Fee, which the petitioner challenged in the writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that upon conversion to LLP, all assets of the partnership firm automatically vested in the LLP by operation of law. As no separate conveyance or instrument of transfer was required, the court held that stamp duty and registration fee were not payable. The court also concluded that the conversion did not change the legal entity of the firm or its constitution.

Issues: The main issue was whether the conversion of the partnership firm to LLP required payment of stamp duty and registration fee.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conversion to LLP resulted in automatic vesting of assets without the need for a separate instrument of transfer, and therefore, stamp duty and registration fee were not payable. The court also emphasized that the conversion did not change the legal entity or constitution of the firm.

Final Decision: The court quashed the direction to deposit stamp duty and registration fee, and directed the authorities to enter the petitioner's name as 'M/s Sozin Flora Pharma LLP' in the revenue record.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Point 1 (!) (!) - Point 2 (!) (!) - Point 3 (!) (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?


JUDGMENT :

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.

1. Upon conversion of the petitioner from ‘Partnership Firm’ to ‘Limited Liability Partnership’, the respondents while granting permission to reflect such change of name in the revenue record, directed it to deposit Stamp Duty and Registration Fee. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid direction in this writ petition.

2. Facts:-

2(i). Petitioner was registered as a Partnership Firm on 14.12.2005 in the office of Deputy Registrar of Firms, District Industries Centre, Nahan. The registration was in the name and style of M/s Sozin Flora Pharma under the provisions of Indian Partnership Act.

2(ii). Essentiality Certificate was issued to the petitioner on 23.11.2005. Permission to purchase land measuring 16 Bigha 14 Biswa comprised in Khewat/Khatoni No.346/443, Khasra No.136 situtated at Mouza Moginand, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur was granted to the petitioner by respondent No.2 under Section 118 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 in March 2006. Stamp Duty and all other leviable charges in lieu of this permission & purchase of land were paid by the petitioner. Eventually, production started in the unit.

2(iii). With intention to avail benefits of Limited Liability Partnership Act 2008, petitioner firm converted itself from ‘Firm’ to ‘Limited Liability Partnership’ (in short LLP) i.e. from ‘M/s Sozin Flora Pharma’ to ‘ M/s Sozin Flora Pharma LLP’. The conversion was as per Section 55 of LLP Act, which reads as under:-

“55. Conversion from firm to limited liability partnership- A firm may convert into a limited liability partnership in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and the Second Schedule.”

Consequent thereupon, the Registrar Himachal Pradesh, Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Chandigarh issued a ‘Certificate of Registration on Conversion’ to the petitioner on 25.10.2016, pursuant to Section 58(1) of the LLP Act.

2(iv). Subsequent to it’s conversion to LLP, the Essentiality Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner by the Director of Industries, Himachal Pradesh on 7.02.2017. The Essentiality Certificate mentioned that as a result of conversion, constitution of the petitioner underwent change. The petitioner applied to the Deputy Commissioner Sirmaur for changing its name in the revenue record from ‘M/s Sozin Flora Pharma’ to ‘M/s Sozin Flora Pharma LLP’. On 27.7.2017 the Deputy Commissioner sought clarification from respondent No.2 in this regard, citing non-clarity with respect to applicability of para-5 of the State Government instructions dated 16.02.2012 to the case of petitioner. It will be appropriate to reproduce hereinafter relevant extracts from the instructions dated 16.02.2012:-

“Subject:- Instructions for disposal of cases regarding change in name of the Company.

I am directed to say that the matter with regard to registration of a transaction for mutation of land in revenue records pursuant to change in name of Company has been under consideration of the department for quite some time.

2. Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 deals with the provision for facilitation and amalgamation of two or more Companies. The amalgamation scheme, which is an agreement between the two or more Companies, is presented before the Court which passes appropriate order sanctioning the compromise or arrangement. Under the scheme of amalgamation the whole or any party of the undertaking, the property or liability of any Company concerned in the scheme is to be transferred to the other company. The amalgamation scheme, sanctioned by the Court, would be an instrument and Stamp Duty is chargeable on such instrument unless the Hon’ble Court, while sanctioning a scheme, has directed under Section 394(2)of the Companies Act, 1956 that on transfer of property on sanction of scheme of amalgamation under Section 391 to 394 no stamp duty shall be payable. Where no such direction has been given by the Court while sanctioning scheme of amalgamation, then no such instrume

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top