VST TILLERS TRACTORS LIMITED. REGD. OFFICE - NO. 1 DYAVASANDRA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE. P B NO. 4801. WHITEFIELD ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE - 560048 Vs. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, SHIMSHA BHAVAN. JALA MANDALI BUILDING, 8TH BL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the petitioners in Company Petition No 43 connected with 44 of 2003 being aggrieved by the order dt. 13.03.2009, wherein the learned Company Judge has held that the petitioners are liable to pay stamp duty in respect of immovable property as well as the lease hold right and in view of Article 20(4) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act. 1957 (hereinafter called as 'Act' for brevity) is not squarely attracted and consequently passed the following order:

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Company Judge, this appeal is filed under Sec.4 of the Karnataka High Court Act and R/w Articles 20(4) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1956 and the order of the learned Single Judge is impugned on the ground that the provisions of Article 20(4) of the Schedule to the Act is prospective and would not be applicable to the present case of the appellants as the order of amalgamation was passed before the Act came into force from 1st April 2007 and order of amalgamation was passed on 13th March 2909. The proviso to Article 20(4) is prospective and cannot be treated as retrospective. The fiscal statute is required to be interpreted in its strict sense and in as much as neither can it be read down or any other interpretation or other than the meaning which comes can be accepted or given, the learned Company Judge has erroneously field that the first proviso is absolutely clear, if immovable property of the Transferor Company is transferred to the Transferee Company, an amount equal to 7% of the market value of the immovable property is liable to be paid. The surmise of the learned Single Judge is inconsistent and self contradictory. The learned Company Judge has erroneously and arbitrarily came to the conclusion that the Companies in Company Petition Nos. 209 of 2003 and 43 of 2003 are liable to pay the stamp duty in respect of the immovable property, contrary to the established principle that the proviso only aides the main charging provision and does not enlarge the scope of the same. Wherefore, the order of the learned Company Judge is liable to be set aside and it may be held that the appellants are not liable to pay any stamp duty as per the valuation made by the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps.

(3.) HAVING regard to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the point that arises for determination in this appeal is: Whether the finding of the learned Company Judge, rejecting the contention of the appellants that they are not liable to pay tax on the immovable property transferred under the scheme of amalgamation to the transferee company under proviso to Article 20(4) of the Schedule to the Act, is justified or calls for interference in this appeal?