What is the timeline for Revenue Department to determine stamp duty on mergers and debenture conversions in Delhi?

-

 


 




Shubham Budhiraja[1]

In case-1, Scheme of amalgamation approved by the NCLT. Thereafter, application was made to Divisional commissioner, Revenue Department, GNCTD seeking adjudication of stamp duty but till date stamp duty payable has not been adjudicated. Hence, writ petition filed seeking directions to the commissioner for adjudication of stamp duty.

In case-2, company has converted debentures into shares. It seeks issuance of stamp paper for share certificate. But despite requests, the commissioner till date has not issued any challan for purchase of stamp paper. Because of this, company is unable to comply section 56(4) of the companies act, 2013. i.e. delivery of share certificate within prescribed time. 

Because in both case-1 & case-2, the scheme of stamp duty & debenture conversion deed, there is no pre-determined stamp duty, therefore application was filed under section 31 of Indian stamp act, 1899 for adjudication of proper stamp duty.

Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that[2]:

(i)                 If an instrument has been executed in India, the same would have to be brought for stamping within one month and in case the document is executed abroad, the same have to be brought for stamping within three months. However, insofar as adjudication as to proper stamp is concerned, there is no time limit which has been fixed under Section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

 

(ii)                Under Section 56 of the Companies Act, 2013 the company cannot register the transfer of securities unless the instrument of transfer is duly stamped, dated, and executed. Section 56(4) requires the said transmission to take place within a period of two months from the date of allotment or from the date of incorporation. In the case of allotment of debentures the time limit fixed is six months.

 

(iii)              Delhi (Right of Citizen to Time Bound Delivery of Services) Act, 2011 (hereinafter, ‘Delhi Act, 2011’) also recognizes the need for registration of documents, granting of licenses, etc., within prescribed time periods in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Entry 331 of the schedule to the Delhi Act, 2011, has fixed a time limit under Section 3 for registration of documents.

 

(iv)              Entry 331 clearly gives the intention of registering documents within 15 days even in case of documents where stamp duty is not prescribed. The Delhi Act, 2011 must be implemented in letter and spirit in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Moreover, stamp duty is also an important source of revenue for the State Government unnecessary delay in the adjudication of the proper stamp duty would also not be in public interest.

 

(v)                Since the activities of individuals and companies would be depended upon various documents, instruments of transfer, etc., and the first step would be to seek adjudication of the stamp duty under Section 31 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, a time limit would be required to be followed by the Collector of Stamps for the said adjudication.

 

(vi)              Thus, reasonable time ought to be fixed in order to enable the parties to have some certainty as to the stamp duty payable. Accordingly, it is directed that the Collector of Stamps shall usually adjudicate the stamp duty payable and communicate the same to parties within 30 days.

 

(vii)             However, if the same involves any complexity/ extraordinary circumstances, the adjudication of stamp duty can be extended for a maximum period of three months from the date of application.


[1] Advocate, Delhi High Court [LLB, ACS, BCOM(H)], Budhirajalawchambers@gmail.com , +91-9654055315

[2] Neutral citation - 2023: DHC:3094

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

REPUGANCY UNDER ARTICLE 254 & TEST OF VALIDATING LAW

-
Image
  Shubham Budhiraja [1] [1] Company Secretary, LLB Final Year,DU & Bcom (H) The land acquisition falls in concurrent list and parliament in year 2013 has introduced a new act which provides for rehabilitation, compensation and procedure on land acquisition of property. The State of T.N has made 3 different state laws w.r.t. land acquisition which was struck off by the High Court. Thereafter, state of TN in year 2019 enacted the same law but with president assent under Article 254 to avoid the repugnancy with 2013 act under Article 254. The appeal filed before apex court w.r.t. repugnancy of 2019 state law with 2013 central law & test of validating the struck off law. The Supreme Court observed as: VALIDATING A LAW WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT Case Law Relevant Remarks National  Agricultural  Cooperative  Marketing  Federation  of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union o...
Read more

Whether a person can be appointed as an arbitrator if his daughter is married to the son of the eldest brother of one of the parties in the arbitration proceedings?

-
Image
    Shubham Budhiraja [1] Two brothers running a family business in the form of a company and dispute arise between them and both decide to resolve through arbitration. During course of arbitration proceedings, one of party filed Section 14(2) r/w Section 15 Petition filed challenging mandate of arbitrator as being terminated because son of arbitrator is married to daughter of eldest brother of one of party and thus should be disqualified under Section 12(5) being ‘close family relationship’. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court declined the relief and held that neither the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act nor the IBA Guidelines define the expression ‘close family relationship’. The plain language of Entry no. 9 indicates that it is not the legislative intent to render a distant relative of the parties to be ineligible for being appointed as an arbitrator, if both the parties so agree. It is not sufficient that the arbitrator is related to any one of the parties; the relation...
Read more

Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?

-
Image
  Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?   Under what circumstances, photocopy of agreement to sell can be relied upon as secondary evidence?   Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed a suit for possession against B on basis of agreement to sell executed in the year 1989. During the hearing, A filed IA for reading photocopy of agreement to sell as secondary evidence because he is not able to find the original agreement to sell. The Trial Court allowed the IA but in review rejected that because agreement to sell was insufficiently stamped therefore bar of section 35 of stamp act applies. The High Court confirmed the order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that bar of Section 35 will not apply because amendment of 1990 wherein explanation was added to the stamp act was substantive in nature and therefore new obligation of stamping cannot be imposed on agreement of sell executed between A and B. [2] ...
Read more