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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a company that registers a transfer of shares, though the transfer deed is not duly stamped, becomes liable to pay the stamp duty on the instrument, or whether the liability remains only on the executant of the transfer deed.
Analysis: Section 34(3) of the Indian Companies Act prohibits registration of a transfer unless the instrument is duly stamped and executed, but it does not create any liability in the company to pay the stamp duty. Under section 29 and article 62(a) of the Indian Stamp Act, the expense of providing the proper stamp on a transfer of shares falls on the person drawing, making, or executing the instrument in the absence of a contrary agreement. The scheme of sections 33, 40, and 48 of the Indian Stamp Act shows that, after impounding an insufficiently stamped document, the Collector can require payment only from the person who is legally liable for the duty. The absence of a penal provision corresponding to section 62(2), which specifically penalises an unstamped share-warrant issued by a company, reinforces that no similar liability is imposed on a company merely for registering an unstamped transfer deed.
Conclusion: The company was not liable to pay the Indian stamp duty on the transfer deed; the liability rested on the executant, and the revenue authorities could proceed only against that person.