The Court noted that the sale agreement had already been charged and further, a PoA needs to be covered by Article 45(f) to be chargeable to stamp duty under Article 20.
Further, the Court noted that the State had issued notifications ordering the reduction and capping of stamp duty payable on securitisation instruments of loans or debt with underlying securities.
Even so, the appellant had been asked to pay a stamp duty which was ₹40,000 more than the ceiling permitted.
The apex court opined that the High Court had erred in holding that PoA can be separately subject to stamp duty under the provisions of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 based on notifications issued under Section 9(a) altering stamp duty rates.
“In all taxing Statutes, there are taxing provisions and machinery provisions. Once a single instrument has been charged under a correct charging provision of the Statute, namely Article 20(a), the Revenue cannot split the instrument into two, because of the reduction in the stamp duty facilitated by a notification of the Government issued under Section 9(a),” the judgement stated.
Since the High Court did not address these issues and went solely on the interpretation of Article 45(f), the Supreme Court allowed the present appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and the demand made by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.
Source: Barandbench
