TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 831X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the Companies Act, the petitioner at its extraordinary general meeting held on 12th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 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 August, 2001 and two dated 16th October, 2001 are challenged by way of this petition. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 having failed to affix necessary stamp on the said instrument it became liable to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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 section and the computation provisions constitute an integrated code. When there is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
