Mere Unwanted Staring At A Woman's Chest In Office Does Not Constitute Voyeurism Under Section 354-C IPC: Bombay High Court State Cannot Justify Espionage FIR Based Solely On Custodial Disclosure Without Corroborative Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Mere Issuance Of Letter Of Intent Without Formal Work Order Does Not Create Concluded Contract Or Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Modify Terms Of Compromise Decree Merely Because Implementation Is Impracticable: Supreme Court Adjudicating Authority Only Needs To Check For 'Plausible' Pre-Existing Dispute Under Section 9 IBC, Not Its Success On Merits: Supreme Court Arguing Against Settled Law To Show Skill Wastes Court Time; Giving Up Such Arguments A Professional Virtue: Supreme Court Limitation Under Section 468 CrPC Is Computed From Date Of Filing Complaint, Not Date Of Cognizance: Supreme Court MSCS Act | Co-operative Society Can't Acquire Corporate Debtor Under IBC If Not In 'Same Line Of Business' As Per Its Bye-Laws: Supreme Court Multi-State Co-op Societies Can Only Invest In Entities With Substantially Similar Core Business Under Bye-Laws: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Usurp Governor's Statutory Discretion To Grant Extraordinary Pension Under 1981 Rules: Supreme Court Litigants Can Challenge Non-Appealable Interlocutory Orders In Final Appeal Under Section 105 CPC: Supreme Court Plaintiff Cannot File Fresh Suit For Title If Relief Was Omitted In Earlier Injunction Suit Arising From Same Dispute: Supreme Court Plaintiff's Failure To Enter Witness Box Draws Rebuttable Presumption, Not Fatal To Suit If Rebutted By Cogent Evidence: Supreme Court Sale Deeds Executed During Pendency Of Specific Performance Suit Hit By Doctrine Of Lis Pendens: Supreme Court EWS Certificates Must Relate To Correct Financial Year; Courts Should Not Routinely Interfere In Online Recruitment Rejections: Supreme Court Court Can Lift 'Veil Of Partnership' To Evict Tenants Using Reconstitution As Cloak For Unlawful Sub-Letting: Supreme Court State Cannot Fix Lower Dearness Relief Rate For Pensioners Than Dearness Allowance For Serving Employees: Supreme Court Prolonged Separation Indicates Matrimonial Bond Broken Beyond Repair: Supreme Court Upholds Divorce Over Wife's Cruelty Right To Contest Elections Distinct From Right To Vote, Co-Operative Societies Can Set Threshold Eligibility Conditions: Supreme Court Court Can Draw Adverse Inference Against Party Withholding Best Evidence, Has No Duty To Seek Production: Supreme Court Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court

Form No.5 Does Not Constitute An Instrument Under the Stamp Act: Supreme Court Sets the Record Straight on Stamp Duty for Increased Share Capital

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court judgment primarily hinged on two legal issues: whether the notice in Form No.5, related to the increase of share capital, constitutes an “instrument” under the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, and whether the maximum cap on stamp duty is a one-time measure or applicable to every increase in share capital.

Facts and Issues: The crux of the dispute was the payment of stamp duty by National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. On its increased share capital. Initially, the company paid Rs. 1,12,80,000 in 1992 and a subsequent Rs. 25 lakhs for a later increase. The company sought a refund of the latter amount, arguing that it had already paid the maximum stamp duty as per the amended Act. The primary issue was whether Form No.5 is an “instrument” attracting separate stamp duty and if the cap on stamp duty applies for each increase in share capital.

Definition of ‘Instrument’: The Court held that Form No.5, used to notify the Registrar of Companies about the increase in share capital, does not fall within the definition of an “instrument” under Section 2(l) of the Stamp Act, as it does not create or alter any right or liability. [Para 10]

Nature of Articles of Association: The Court observed that Articles of Association, which are deemed as “instruments”, do not materially alter with an increase in share capital. Hence, further stamp duty is not warranted for such alterations. [Para 11]

Maximum Cap on Stamp Duty: Addressing the amendment introducing a cap on stamp duty, the Court opined that once the cap is reached, no further stamp duty can be levied for subsequent increases in share capital. [Para 15]

Retrospective Effect and Refund: Despite the amendment not being retrospective, the Court ruled that stamp duty paid on the same instrument (Articles of Association) before the amendment should be considered for subsequent increases post-amendment. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to a refund. [Para 18]

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the State of Maharashtra, upholding the High Court’s order for a refund of Rs. 25 lakhs with interest @ 6% per annum to National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd.

Date of Decision: 5th April 2024

State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd.

Latest Legal News