https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82911 The doctrine of merger was examined concerning the jurisdiction of the respondent to adjudicate stamp duty u/ss 31 and 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The respondent's power u/s 47A(3) to examine instruments for correctness of value or duty payable is barred by the two-year limitation period from the instrument's registration date. The petitioner filed the merger order on 07.12.2011, but the respondent issued a show-cause notice on 20.03.2014, beyond the two-year period. The Delhi Towers Ltd. case held that court orders are subject to stamp duty, and the definition of 'conveyance' u/s 2(10) is inclusive. However, as the petitioner and ACIPL were wholly-owned subsidiaries of a common parent company, the merger order was exempt from stamp duty under Notification no. 13 dated 25.12.1937. The show-cause notice and impugned order were quashed, and the petition was allowed. en-us Fri, 08 Nov 2024 19:58:06 +0530 Fri, 08 Nov 2024 19:58:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82911 The doctrine of merger was examined concerning the jurisdiction of the respondent to adjudicate stamp duty u/ss 31 and 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The respondent's power u/s 47A(3) to examine instruments for correctness of value or duty payable is barred by the two-year limitation period from the instrument's registration date. The petitioner filed the merger order on 07.12.2011, but the respondent issued a show-cause notice on 20.03.2014, beyond the two-year period. The Delhi Towers Ltd. case held that court orders are subject to stamp duty, and the definition of 'conveyance' u/s 2(10) is inclusive. However, as the petitioner and ACIPL were wholly-owned subsidiaries of a common parent company, the merger order was exempt from stamp duty under Notification no. 13 dated 25.12.1937. The show-cause notice and impugned order were quashed, and the petition was allowed. Highlights Companies Law Fri, 08 Nov 2024 19:58:06 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82911