2002 (7) TMI 831

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....MENT D.A. Mehta, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Mengdey waives service of rule on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company registered under relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner was originally incorporated as a Private Limited Company under the name of Anup Industries Private Limited on 21st August, 1961. As required by the provisions of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g why the authority should not recover deficit stamp duty and penalty in relation to the two declarations made for the purposes of records of G.I.D.C. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notices by two letters of 23rd August, 2001. However, the respondent-authorities did not accept the explanation and issued further notices on 16th October, 2001. The aforesaid four notices, two dated 13th Aug....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eyance' in Section 2(g) and 'Instrument' in Section 2(1) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, in support of his contention that the declaration made by the petitioner-Company amounted to an instrument under which the leased out plots were conveyed from Private Limited Company to a Limited Company resulting in a transaction of transfer which was exigible to stamp duty. That the petitioner hav....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns fail. It is an admitted position as can be seen from the declarations that as per Paragraph 3, it is specifically stated in unequivocal terms that no consideration is paid. If this be the position the provisions on which reliance has been placed by the respondents cannot be invoked against the petitioner. The provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 have to be read together i.e. the charging se....