<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1963 (1) TMI 65 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297277</link>
    <description>A mortgage deed executed in Uttar Pradesh was chargeable to stamp duty under Uttar Pradesh law, and compliance had to be tested under both the Act and the Stamp Rules, which required stamps overprinted for that State. Stamping in accordance with West Bengal law did not satisfy the Uttar Pradesh requirement, because duty arose on execution within Uttar Pradesh and the instrument had to be stamped in the manner prescribed there. Section 19A applied only where an instrument first chargeable elsewhere later became chargeable in Uttar Pradesh at a higher rate; it did not cure non-compliance with the State of initial liability. The deed was therefore not duly stamped under Uttar Pradesh law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2021 15:10:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=653945" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (1) TMI 65 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297277</link>
      <description>A mortgage deed executed in Uttar Pradesh was chargeable to stamp duty under Uttar Pradesh law, and compliance had to be tested under both the Act and the Stamp Rules, which required stamps overprinted for that State. Stamping in accordance with West Bengal law did not satisfy the Uttar Pradesh requirement, because duty arose on execution within Uttar Pradesh and the instrument had to be stamped in the manner prescribed there. Section 19A applied only where an instrument first chargeable elsewhere later became chargeable in Uttar Pradesh at a higher rate; it did not cure non-compliance with the State of initial liability. The deed was therefore not duly stamped under Uttar Pradesh law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297277</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>