Strict interpretation of stamp duty law limits impounding, share premium inclusion, and fragmentation of composite amalgamation schemes.

Section 31 adjudication of stamp duty does not authorise impounding under Section 33 at that stage, and the Collector's use of impounding power was rejected. For non-listed companies under Article 20(d), market value is fixed by the deeming rule at face value, so share premium cannot be added by implication. A revised notice correcting the demand before final adjudication was upheld, but penalty was unsustainable on the facts. A single composite amalgamation scheme was not split into separate matters for Section 5. Duty already paid in another State attracted statutory set-off under Section 19. On immovable property, the demand was sustained for land, building, and plant and machinery, but not for capital work in progress.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Collector could invoke the impounding power under Section 33 while proceeding under Section 31 for adjudication of stamp duty; (ii) whether stamp duty under Article 20(d) had to be computed with reference to the appointed date and whether share premium could be added to the face value of shares in cases where neither company was listed; (iii) whether a revised notice could validly expand the scope of the earlier notice and whether penalty could be sustained; (iv) whether a single composite scheme of amalgamation or reconstruction sanctioned by court or tribunal constituted several distinct matters attracting Section 5; (v) whether transmission lines and capital work in progress could be treated as immovable property for stamp duty purposes; and (vi) whether duty already paid in another State was liable to set off under Section 19.

Issue (i): whether the Collector could invoke the impounding power under Section 33 while proceeding under Section 31 for adjudication of stamp duty

Analysis: Section 31 is a self-contained adjudicatory provision for determining the duty chargeable on an instrument brought for opinion. The power to impound under Section 33 operates at a later stage when an instrument is produced before a person empowered to receive evidence or before a public office in the course of official functions. The adjudication mechanism under Section 31 does not itself authorise impounding merely because the Collector is asked to determine duty.

Conclusion: The answer is in the negative and is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether stamp duty under Article 20(d) had to be computed with reference to the appointed date and whether share premium could be added to the face value of shares in cases where neither company was listed

Analysis: The charging event under the Stamp Act is linked to execution of the instrument and not to the appointed date mentioned in the scheme. For non-listed transferee and transferor companies, Explanation III(c) to Article 20(d) creates a deeming rule that the market value of shares is the face value of shares issued or allotted. The provision does not permit the premium component to be read into the face value or treated as separate consideration. In a fiscal statute, such an addition cannot be implied when the text does not provide for it.

Conclusion: The answer is in favour of the assessee, and share premium cannot be added to the face value for computation under Article 20(d).

Issue (iii): whether a revised notice could validly expand the scope of the earlier notice and whether penalty could be sustained

Analysis: Where the authority notices an error in the earlier demand before final adjudication, a revised notice correcting the charge does not by itself vitiate the proceedings. However, penalty could not be sustained where the statutory timeline and the scheme-specific filing period were complied with on the facts found, and the foundation for invoking penal consequences was absent.

Conclusion: The revised notice was upheld, but penalty was not sustainable and the answer on penalty is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): whether a single composite scheme of amalgamation or reconstruction sanctioned by court or tribunal constituted several distinct matters attracting Section 5

Analysis: Section 5 applies where one instrument comprises or relates to several distinct matters or transactions. A composite scheme sanctioned by a single order, even if it effects multiple steps of reorganisation, was treated as one indivisible instrument where the transactions were part of one composite arrangement and there was a common subject matter. The instrument was therefore not to be split into separate chargeable transactions for the purpose of multiple duties under Section 5.

Conclusion: The answer is in favour of the assessee and Section 5 was held not attracted in the manner urged by the Revenue.

Issue (v): whether transmission lines and capital work in progress could be treated as immovable property for stamp duty purposes

Analysis: For immovable property, the statutory definition covers land and things attached to the earth, and by deeming fiction also plant and machinery of a factory transferred or sold with the intention of running the factory. On the facts, the demand based on land, building and plant and machinery was upheld, but capital work in progress could not automatically be treated as immovable property without proper identification and bifurcation. The issue was therefore answered partly for the Revenue and partly for the assessee.

Conclusion: The answer is partly in favour of the Revenue for land, building and plant and machinery, and partly in favour of the assessee for capital work in progress.

Issue (vi): whether duty already paid in another State was liable to set off under Section 19

Analysis: Section 19 grants credit for duty already paid elsewhere on the same instrument when it is received in the State, to the extent of the duty chargeable in the receiving State. Where the instrument had already suffered duty in another State, the authorities were required to give the statutory set off while recomputing the liability.

Conclusion: The answer is in favour of the assessee and the set off was held available.

Final Conclusion: The references were answered predominantly against the Revenue on the central questions of computation, interpretation, and jurisdiction, with only a limited part of the revenue demand sustained on immovable property other than capital work in progress.

Ratio Decidendi: In a fiscal statute, the court must apply the text strictly; for non-listed companies under Article 20(d), the deeming rule fixes market value at face value, share premium cannot be added by implication, and a single composite scheme sanctioned by one order is not to be fragmented into distinct matters unless the statute clearly so provides.

---