Additional stamp duty on scheme-of-arrangement conveyance remains valid despite the Schedule cap under the Karnataka Stamp Act.

The Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 treats the duty under Section 3 as the Schedule duty and separately imposes additional duty under Section 3B at 10% on specified instruments. For a conveyance approving a scheme of arrangement under the Companies Act, the cap in Article 20(4) limits only the duty chargeable under Section 3 and does not absorb the separate surcharge under Section 3B. Section 3C, despite its non obstante wording, operates only to prevent duty under other laws from exceeding the Act's maximum and does not curtail the independent levy under Section 3B. The statutory framework therefore allows the additional stamp duty over and above the capped Schedule duty.

---

---

Issues: Whether additional stamp duty under Section 3B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 could be levied on an instrument of conveyance approving a scheme of arrangement under Sections 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013, notwithstanding the maximum duty prescribed in Article 20(4) of the Schedule and the effect of Section 3C of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.

Analysis: The charging provision in Section 3 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 makes the duty payable the amount specified in the Schedule, while Section 3B creates a distinct levy of additional duty at ten per cent of the duty chargeable on specified instruments. Section 3B(2) expressly provides that the additional duty is in addition to the duty chargeable under Section 3. The maximum amount in Article 20(4) of the Schedule limits only the duty under Section 3 on the instrument of conveyance and does not absorb the separate levy under Section 3B. Section 3C, although couched in non obstante language, operates only to prevent duty under any other law from exceeding the maximum amount chargeable under the Act; it does not curtail the independent levy under Section 3B. The statutory scheme therefore permits the additional cess or stamp duty over and above the capped duty under the Schedule.

Conclusion: The levy of additional stamp duty under Section 3B was valid and was not restricted by the maximum duty prescribed in Article 20(4) or by Section 3C.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the adjudication of stamp duty failed, and the additional levy was upheld as being within the statutory framework of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute creates a separate additional duty and expressly states that it is in addition to the duty chargeable under the charging provision, a maximum duty cap in the Schedule does not include or exhaust that additional levy, and a non obstante clause limited to duty under other laws cannot be used to curtail the separate statutory surcharge.

---