TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es a PoA covered by the said provision to be chargeable to stamp duty under Article 20. In view of the Notification dated 01.04.2003 issued in exercise of the power to reduce, remit or compound the duty, conferred by Section 9(a) of the Act, the amount of duty chargeable in terms of Article 20(a) was capped at ₹ 1,00,000/. In addition to the said amount of ₹ 1,00,000/, the appellant was asked to pay an additional duty of ₹ 40,000/under Section 3A. The appellant has thus paid a total amount of ₹ 1,40,000/with the instrument having been charged as a conveyance under Article 20(a). In all taxing Statutes, there are taxing provisions and machinery provisions. Once a single instrument has been charged under a correc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of the State of Gujarat, the Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., has come up with the above appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. V. Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, learned counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat. 3. The Oriental Bank of Commerce ( OBC for short) granted certain facilities to a borrower and the borrower committed default in repayment. Unable to recover the loan, the Bank assigned the debt in favour of the appellant herein, which is an Asset Reconstruction Company registered with the Reserve Bank of India under Section 3 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is proper or not, as per Article45( f) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 or not? (B) Whether the Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited is liable to pay stamp duty of ₹ 24,94,100/i. e. 4.9% as per Article20( a) of the Bombay Stamp Act or not? 7. For finding an answer to the above questions, the Full Bench of the High Court examined the recitals contained in the deed of assignment and found that the Bank had agreed to execute an irrevocable PoA in favour of the appellant herein, substantially in the form set out in Schedule 3 of the deed of assignment. The form set out in Schedule 3 contained recitals empowering the assignee, as the agent of the Bank, to sell any immovable property. Therefore, considering the fact that Ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of OBC in terms of Section 5(1)(b) of the Securitisation Act, 2002. Therefore, under subsection (2) of Section 5 of the Securitisation Act, 2002, the appellant shall be deemed to be the lender and all the rights of the Bank vested in them. In fact, under Amendment Act 44 of 2016, subsection (1A) was inserted in Section 5 of the Securitisation Act, exempting from stamp duty, any document executed by any bank under Section 5(1) in favour of an Asset Reconstruction Company acquiring financial assets for the purposes of asset reconstruction or securitization. Though the said amendment may not be applicable to the case of the appellant, as the deed of assignment, in this case, was executed long prior to the amendment, we have just taken note o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 75 paise for every ₹ 1000 or part thereof. This Notification reads as follows: In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 9 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (Bom LX of 1958) and in supersession of Government Orders Revenue Department No. GHM9822MSTP10962527H1 dated 26.02.1998, the Government of Gujarat hereby reduces from the date of publication of this order the duty with which an instrument of securitization of loans or assignment of debt with underlying securities chargeable under Article 20 (a) of Schedule I to the said Act to 75 paise for every rupees 1000 or part thereof the loan securitised or debt assigned with underlying securities. By order and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat. 14. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment into two, because of the reduction in the stamp duty facilitated by a notification of the Government issued under Section 9(a). In other words after having accepted the deed of assignment as an instrument chargeable to duty as a conveyance under Article 20(a) and after having collected the duty payable on the same, it is not open to the respondent to subject the same instrument to duty once again under Article 45(f), merely because the appellant had the benefit of the notifications under Section 9(a). Since the impugned order of the High Court did not address these issues and went solely on the interpretation of Article 45(f), the same is unsustainable. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The demand ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
