Case Law Details
State Of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)
This judgement will be helpful in dealing with similar issues under the new 2013 Act also and other stamp duty related matters.
An interesting question arose before the Supreme Court when the Respondent NOCIL increased its authorised capital once in the year 1992 and it paid the stamp duty as applicable. Thereafter in the year the stamp duty was capped at Rs 25 lacs. Thereafter when NOCIL again increased its authorised capital, it inadvertently deposited the stamp duty but later on claimed refund of the same in view of the capping provisions as above in the stamp act.
In SLP before Supreme Court, the Ld Judges analysed the nature of Form No 5 by holding that the same cannot be said to be an instrument under the stamp act as the purpose of Form No 5 was only to give information to ROC about the increase in authorised capital having already taken place by virtue of the resolutions passed as per the Act. The Instrument was Articles of Association and on such instrument the stamp as per the maximum limit had already been paid, no further duty could be demanded.
It is a settled position of law that in case of conflict between two laws, the general law must give way to the special law. A conjoined reading of the Stamp Act and the Companies Act would show that while the former governs the payment of stamp duty for all manner of instruments, the latter deals with all aspects relating to companies and other similar associations.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
