MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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