{"id":49261,"date":"2016-05-26T14:14:38","date_gmt":"2016-05-26T08:44:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=49261"},"modified":"2016-07-25T17:42:40","modified_gmt":"2016-07-25T12:12:40","slug":"no-rebate-for-stamp-duty-to-be-paid-in-another-state-in-case-of-scheme-of-arrangement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/26\/no-rebate-for-stamp-duty-to-be-paid-in-another-state-in-case-of-scheme-of-arrangement\/","title":{"rendered":"No rebate for Stamp Duty to be paid in another State in case of scheme of arrangement"},"content":{"rendered":"

Bombay High Court:<\/strong> Deciding a case on amalgamation between two companies the Reliance Industries Limited and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Jamnagar the bench of S .C. <\/strong>Dharmadhikari, K.R. Shriram, B.P. Colabawalla, J.J., held that the order involving different High Courts of various states are separate instruments in themselves in case of scheme under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 so the stamp duty will be payable on all orders without the benefit of remission, set-off or rebate.<\/p>\n

In a case where Reliance Industries Limited, having its registered office in Maharashtra and Reliance Petroleum Limited, having its registered office in Gujarat entered into a scheme of amalgamation under Sections 391 to 394 of the Act,\u00a0 wherein the Act required the scheme of amalgamation to be approved by High Courts having territorial jurisdiction over the transferor company and the transferee company, the Bombay HC on June 7, 2002 passed an order sanctioning the scheme. RPL paid stamp duty of INR 10 Crores on the Gujarat Order in the state of Gujarat. The RIL on October 16, 2002 submitted the Bombay Order for adjudication of stamp duty and further contended that the maximum payable Stamp duty under Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 was INR 25 Crores and since RPL had already submitted 10 Crores, it only has to pay 15 crores.<\/p>\n

However this contention was rejected by the revenue authorities and RIL and RPL were directed to deposit the entire stamp duty which is INR 25 crores on the Bombay Order. RPL and RIL appealed against the order of the revenue authorities but the appeal was rejected by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra and a reference was filed before the Bombay High Court for its opinion on Section 54 of Bombay Stamp Act as it involved a substantial question of law.<\/p>\n

Citing the case of Hindustan Lever v. State of Maharashtra (2004) 9 SCC 438<\/a>, the Supreme Court decided in favor of the Revenue Authorities and held:<\/p>\n