Stamp duty on composite assignment deed cannot be levied twice by isolating an incidental power of attorney recital.

A single assignment agreement already charged to stamp duty as a conveyance under Article 20(a) of the Bombay Stamp Act could not be subjected to a second levy under Article 45(f) merely because it contained an incidental irrevocable power of attorney schedule. The power to deal with the secured asset arose from the SARFAESI framework, not from a separate taxable PoA, and Article 45(f) applies only to an independent power of attorney given for consideration and authorising sale of immovable property. Once the instrument had been correctly stamped under the applicable provision, the Revenue could not split it and impose duty again on the same document.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assignment agreement already charged to stamp duty as a conveyance under Article 20(a) of Schedule I to the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 could again be subjected to duty under Article 45(f) on the basis of an incidental irrevocable power of attorney contained in the same document.

Analysis: The instrument presented for registration was a single assignment agreement. The reference to an irrevocable power of attorney was only in the form of a schedule and was incidental to the assignment of financial assets. There was no independent instrument of power of attorney, and the authority to deal with the secured asset flowed from the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 rather than from a separate PoA. Article 45(f) applies only where a PoA is given for consideration and independently authorises sale of immovable property. Here, the deed had already been charged under Article 20(a), and the State had also granted a notification-based reduction and cap on duty for securitisation or assignment of debt. Once the instrument was accepted and duty collected under the correct charging provision, the Revenue could not split the same instrument and levy duty again under Article 45(f).

Conclusion: The additional levy under Article 45(f) was not sustainable and the demand was liable to be set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned demand based on a separate stamp duty charge on the same assignment instrument was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A single composite instrument, already stamped under the appropriate charging provision, cannot be subjected to a second levy by isolating an incidental recital that does not constitute an independent taxable instrument.

---