GUJARAT ORGANICS LIMITED Vs. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the Bombay Stamp Act on the grounds stated in the petition for the following prayers :

(2.) Heard learned counsel, Shri. Sandeep Singhi for Singhi & Co. for the petitioner and learned AGP Shri. Bharat Vyas for the respondents.

(3.) Learned counsel, Shri. Singhi has referred to the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (herein after referred to as "the Stamp Act"), more particularly, Section 2(g) of the Stamp Act, which defines conveyance. He submitted that Section 2(g) of the Stamp Act is the charging section and the impugned notice issued under Section 68 of the Stamp Act is without jurisdiction. He pointedly referred to the said notice as well as the reply of the petitioner dated 30th August, 2002 at Annexure E. It was submitted that few dates are very relevant for the purpose of deciding such issue inasmuch as the provision of Section 2(g) of the Stamp Act has been amended to include the transfer made pursuant to the order of the High Court under the scheme of amalgamation within the meaning of conveyance by amending the definition of conveyance. He further submitted that this amendment came into effect on 4th April, 1994. It was submitted that though after such amendment, transfer of property pursuant to the order of the High Court under Section 394 of the Companies Act is included in the definition of conveyance liable for the stamp duty, there was no provision for the manner and method of calculation of such duty. It has been submitted that though by amendment in the definition of word conveyance, any such transfer pursuant to the order of the High Court under Section 394 of the Companies Act has been included, corresponding amendment in the Stamp Act regarding calculation was not made till 1997. Therefore, it was submitted that if there is no computation provided then, charging section will not have any effect. Learned counsel, Shri. Singhi therefore submitted that in order to have the complete effect in such statute, there has to be a charging section as well as the provisions for computation in the statute. It was submitted that though the provision has been made bringing the transaction under the scheme of amalgamation pursuant to the order of the High Court under Section 394, covered by conveyance liable for the stamp duty, there is no corresponding provision for computation. He therefore submitted that identical situation was considered by the Honble Bombay High Court in a judgment in case of Li Taka Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in AIR 1997 Bombay 7. Learned counsel, Shri. Singhi pointedly referred to the observations made in the said judgment and submitted that the Honble Bombay High Court has made observations in para nos.28, 29, 31 and 32. He pointedly referred to the observations made in the said judgment, which reads as under :