Mrinal Kumar & Shruti Garg
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Stamp Act) that prescribes the rates for the stamping of documents is of the utmost concern to the people investing in real estate. The Finance Ministry has recently proposed certain amendments to the Stamp Act. The amendment bill inter alia proposes to amend the definition of conveyance and lease of immovable property. The conveyance of movable and immovable property has been re-defined to include in its scope every such decree or final order of a court or revenue authority and any order of the tribunal or High Court sanctioning the scheme of reconstruction of companies which results in the transfer of property. Similarly, the definition of lease is proposed to be amended to include in its scope an agreement to lease, the decree and final order of a court in respect of the lease and leases of movable property.
These amendments are in line with a recent judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Delhi Towers Ltd. v. GNCT of Delhi, whereby the High Court of Delhi ruled that stamp duty is payable on a court order approving the scheme of arrangement under Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, irrespective of a specific entry in the Stamp Act. A lot of confusion had been prevailing with respect to the stamping of a court order resulting in the transfer of immovable property, as reflected in the contradictory ruling of the various courts in India. The proposed amendments once enacted would bring to rest the speculations surrounding the stamping of such court orders.
The rationale behind the proposed amendment appears to be this: the court order approving the amalgamation / restructuring of the companies is based on the agreement between the transferee company and the transferor company. It is basically a scheme of amalgamation approved by the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Companies Act, 1956 which results in the transfer of the immovable property from the transferor company to the transferee company. The said proposal is of vital importance in any amalgamation, merger or demerger transaction as once the proposed amendments are approved, the order of the courts approving the schemes of restructuring of companies will have to be stamped. Once enacted, the said amendment would result in the restructuring of the companies via the intervention of the courts, become an expensive deal. It may be noted that as per 1937 notification on the remission of stamp duty, existent in certain states in India, there is an exemption on the payment of stamp duty, where the property is being transferred between group companies or between holding and subsidiary companies. In light of the same, it is suggested that similar exemption must be made in the proposed amendment to the definition of ‘conveyance’.
Further, the bill must eliminate the ambiguities regarding the stamping of court orders where the properties proposed to be transferred are situated in various states. In such a case, it shall be practical if the company is required to pay the highest of the stamp duty on the court orders as prescribed by the stamp acts of the various states.
| Pages 1 | 2
Show Full Article
|
|
- 1. "it was a new learning for me.. though a bit too above the head at my level...". Pranusha Kulkarni, Hubli
- 2. "What is the current situation if properties of the trasferor are situated in different states? also procedure followed in registration with the sub registrar of assurances if properties are in different states??where is it registered..also if in a case the transferor as no immovables then only filing with RoC suffices right?". Saurav, Mumbai
- 3. "What is the current situation if properties of the trasferor are situated in different states? also procedure followed in registration with the sub registrar of assurances if properties are in different states??where is it registered..also if in a case the transferor as no immovables then only filing with RoC suffices right?". Saurav, Mumbai
- 4. "It is my submission that even though some of the states have amended the definition of conveyance so as to include the order of the High Court under Sec.394 of the Companies Act, as per the definition, duty is chargeable on the order which is kept in the Court since it is the instrument (vide section 2(14) of the principal Act - copy is not an instrument) and not on the copy of the order. Like final decree of Partition, unless the required stamp papers have been produced and order is drawn on the stamp paper, the order cannot be deemed to be a order. It seems that the concerned company used to adjudicate stampduty only on the copy of decree. ". B.Prakasam, (Sub Registrar-Retd)., Advocate, (Unknown City?)Chennai
Related Stories
- Proposed Amendments to the Arbitration Act – Consultation Paper released by the Law Ministry
- Significant amendments proposed to Consumer Protection Act; Online filing to be made permissible, fines for non-compliance enhanced
- The Indian Lockstep
- Global Indian M&A: Shearman and Sterling still on the job, as Sterlite increases bid for Asarco
- Lehman Structured Products: Indian activist Investors ensure changes in UAE policy
- Indian American Lawyer commits $2 Million fraud
- Crawford Bayley and Khaitan latest beneficiaries of flourishing Indian pharma sector; assist in Hospira-Orchid acquisition
Other Features
- The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
- The Viewpoint: Presidential Directive to Ease Coal Supply?
- The Viewpoint: The Vagaries of Project Finance
- The Viewpoint - Underwriting in Equity Capital Issuances in India
- The Viewpoint - Change, Force Majeure and Renegotiation: Infrastructure Projects
- The Viewpoint - Anti-trust review of intra-group restructurings
- The Little People
Top News
- Linklaters Managing Associate Pranav Sharma to rejoin Amarchand Mangaldas as Partner
- Re-Upped Round up May 17
- Recruitment Tracker: Luthra top recruiter followed by Amarchand and AZB for NALSAR Class of 2012
- Siddharth Wahi joins JSA as Of Counsel; Former Baker Mckenzie SA to focus on Energy Sector
- Re-Upped Round up May 16
- Bombay HC taking proactive steps to fight pendency; Special committee to examine pending civil suits for speedy disposal
- CLAT Booze Bills: NUJS defies providing information under RTI Act










