TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an authorisation executed by a chartered accountant for appearance in income-tax proceedings is chargeable to stamp duty under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, or only to court fee under the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, and whether the demand of Rs. 50 was sustainable.
Analysis: Section 288 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 permits an assessee to appear through an authorised representative, including an accountant. The Court held that the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 did not apply to documents presented before officers serving under the Central Government, so the authorisation could not be treated as chargeable under that Act. On that footing, the reliance on the court-fees schedule was rejected. The Court further held that an authorisation empowering a person to act for and in the name of the executant is an instrument within the meaning of section 2(p) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, and since it is not chargeable with fee under the applicable court-fees law, article 44(b) of the Stamp Act attracted stamp duty. The distinction between court fee and stamp duty was held not to negate the levy, and the constitutional objection was not accepted.
Conclusion: The authorisation was liable to stamp duty under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, and the demand contained in the impugned communications was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a document authorising representation in income-tax proceedings is not chargeable with fee under the applicable court-fees law, it falls within the charging provision of the Stamp Act as a power of attorney and is liable to stamp duty.
TaxTMI 
