The judgment establishes the principle that Taxing Statutes should be interpreted literally and unambiguously, without room for equity-based interpretations.

M.M. Sundresh, J. –

1. This Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned single judge whereby the Writ Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed confirming the order dated 04.12.2006, by which the request made by the appellant for the refund of stamp duty was rejected.

2. Facts in brief, are, as follows:-

i) The appellant is a Limited company. The appellant has been involved in the business of designing, developing, manufacturing, buying and selling of lightning arresters, zinc oxide varistors and their components thereof. M/s.S & S Hitech Security Systems Limited was a subsidiary company of M/s.SSB Industries Limited. M/s.SSB Industries Limited was the holding and parent company. The parent company, M/s.SSB Industries Limited transferred all its assets inclusive of land, building and machineries in favour of its subsidiary company M/s.S & S Hitech Security Systems Limited by way of a registered Sale Deed dated 22.11.2000. The document was registered in Document No.2310/2000 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Villianur, Pondicherry. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.4,70,33,000/-. Accordingly a total stamp duty of Rs.44,80,000/- was paid as per Article 23 [Conveyance] of Schedule I under Section3 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

ii) Thereafter, the appellant made a representation on 15.05.2001 to the Joint Secretary of Revenue, Government of Pondicherry, requesting the refund of a sum of Rs.44,80,000/- said to have been paid as excess stamp duty by oversight. The said request was made basing reliance upon the Notification issued by the Government of India in Notification No.12 dated 25.12.1937, prior to the independence. The said representation was followed by subsequent representations dated 27.10.2003 and 25.11.2003. A reply was sent by the respondent dated 09.07.2004 to the appellant stating that certain particulars need be furnished by the appellant to process the representation further. The appellant, in and by the letter dated 14.07.2004, provided the particulars sought for. A letter was also addressed by the respondent to the Registrar of Companies dated 13.10.2004 to grant certificate to the effect that the conditions mentioned in the Government of India Notification No.1 dated 16.01.1937 has been fulfilled. The appellant made a further representation on 08.11.2004. A communication was also sent by the Assistant Registrar of Companies to the respondent on 25.02.2005 referring the particulars of the shares held by M/s.SSB Industries Limited.

iii) The appellant filed a writ petition in W.P.No.8573/2006 seeking a direction to the respondent to dispose of the representations made. In pursuance to the said order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 12.04.2006, the order impugned dated 04.12.2006 has been passed by the respondent stating that inasmuch as the Sale Deed falls under Article 23 [Conveyance] of Schedule I under Section3 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the question of excess stamp duty and the consequent request for remission does not arise for consideration. Challenging the said order, the appellant filed the Writ Petition.

iv) The learned single judge was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition on the ground that Notification No.12 dated 25.12.1937 does not have any application to the case of the appellant. When the respondent was under the French rule up to 1954, it cannot be said that the Notification issued in the year 1937 will have to be applied. It was further observed that the Notification was issued pursuant to the then Companies Act, 1913 and the said Act was repealed. Therefore, the contention regarding the applicability of Notification No.12 dated 25.12.1937 was rejected.

v) The learned single judge has also rejected the contention of the appellant made based upon Section 6 of the Pondicherry (Extension of Laws) Act, 1968 and held that the said provision will not be applicable in the absence of any Notification passed by the respondent. It is further held by the learned