TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Overturns Stamp Duty Order, Emphasizes Fair Taxation</h1> <h3>ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO. (INDIA) LTD. Versus CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY</h3> ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO. (INDIA) LTD. Versus CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY - TMI Issues:1. Interpretation of stamp duty provisions under the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958.2. Validity of the demand for deficit stamp duty on a deed of assignment.3. Application of stamp duty provisions to a Power of Attorney (PoA) in the context of a deed of assignment.4. Impact of government notifications on stamp duty payable for securitization of loans or assignment of debt.Analysis:1. The case revolved around the interpretation of stamp duty provisions under the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958, concerning a deed of assignment. The Asset Reconstruction Company challenged the opinion of the High Court of Gujarat on stamp duty liability.2. The dispute arose when an audit objection was raised regarding a deed of assignment, which included a reference to a Power of Attorney (PoA). The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority demanded deficit stamp duty, leading to the appellant's appeal against the order.3. The High Court held that the PoA referenced in the deed of assignment was chargeable to stamp duty under Article 45(f) of the Act. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the deed of assignment was a single document, and the power of sale stemmed from the Securitisation Act, not an independent PoA.4. The Supreme Court highlighted government notifications reducing stamp duty for securitization of loans. The Court ruled that once an instrument is charged under the correct provision, the Revenue cannot split it for additional duty. The appellant had already paid the duty under Article 20(a), and subjecting it to duty again under Article 45(f) was deemed unsustainable.5. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and the demand for deficit stamp duty. The Court emphasized the importance of correctly applying stamp duty provisions and government notifications, ensuring fair and consistent taxation practices.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
