9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. As such member the 1st Appellant was the holder of 5 shares each bearing distinctive Nos. 711 to 715. As such member the 1st Appellant was in occupation of office premi es No. 904 on the 9th floor of the building known as Dalamal Tower situated at 211, Nariman Point, Bombay 400 021. By an Instrument dated 31st March, 1986 the 1st Appellant transferred in favour of Appellants Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 the said 5 shares fo a consideration of Rs. 9,46,900/-. The said Instrument of Transfer, inter alia, set out that the Dalamal Tower Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. was the owner of the building Dalamal Tower; that the 1st Appellant was a member of the said society hold ng the said 5 shares; that one of the incidents of membership was that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also sought directions against the Superintendent of Stamps and the State of Maharashtra to desist and forbear fr m charging, demanding or recovering stamp duty on the said form of Transfer of shares, or from proceeding on the basis that the form of Transfer of shares was not duly stamped and, thus, liable to be impounded. The Appellants contended that the instrum nt of transfer was a document transferring the shares held in a body corporate and was thus not within the purview of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. They also contended that the levy of stamp duty on transfer of shares in a co-operative society fell excluively within Entry 91 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The Appellants contended that it was beyond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een above stamp duty is sought to be levied under Article 25, Schedule I of the Bombay Stamp Act. The stamp duty is be ing levied not on transfer of shares but on the basis that the agreement is a conveyance. There is no dispute that there is legislative competence in the State Government to levy stamp duty on a conveyance of property. Question No. (b) has been raised n the footing that the instrument of transfer is a form of transfer of shares. Now that it is held that such an instrument is not an instrument of transfer of shares, but it is, in fact, a conveyance question (b) no longer survives.
In this view of the matter, the Appeal does not survive. The same stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
