LexCHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY versus COSTAL GUJARAT POWER LTD. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015) 9 S.C.R. 36 A CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY v. COSTAL GUJARAT POWER LTD. AND OTHERS B (Civil Appeal No. 6054 of2015) AUGUST 11, 2015 [M. Y. EQBALANDARUN MISHRA, JJ.) Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958- ss. 5 and 6- Respondent- c company took financial assistance - From 13 financial institutions - The 13 lenders formed a consortium as a trust and executed a security trustee agreement, appointing one of the banker-lender as a security trustee - The company executed a Mortgage Deed with the security trustee - D Registration of the deed - Deman.d of additional stamp duty by the Revenue on the basis of s. 5 - Demand challenged - Revenue Authorities confirmed the demand - On Reference, High Court opined in favour of the company - On appeal, held: The Mortgage Deed came into existence only after E separate loan agreements were executed by the borrower- Company with the 13 financial institutions-lenders with regard to separate loan advanced - On proper construction of the Mortgage Deed, it can safely be regarded as 13 distinct F transactions which fall uls. 5 - Demand of additional stamp duty confirmed. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court has committed serious G error of law in interpreting the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958. Consequently, · the answer given by the High Court on the Reference, cannot be sustained in law. [Para 36) [55-D] H 2. From bare reading of ss. 4, 5 and 6 of the Act, it is 36 ·- CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUEAUTHORITYv. COSTAL 37 GUJARAT POWER LTD. clear that Section 4 deals with single transaction A · completed in several instruments, whereas Section 5 deals only with the instrument which comprises more than one transaction and it is immaterial for the purpose whether those transactions are of the same category or of different categories. [Para 31) [52-F-G] B 3. From the facts of the case, it is manifest that the instrument of mortgage came into existence only after separate loan ·agreements were executed by the borrower with the lenders with regard to separate loan C advanced by those lenders to the respondent borrower. [Para 28) [50-G] 4. It appears from the trustee document that altogether 13 banks lent money to the mortgagor, details o of which have been described in the schedule and for the repayment of money, the borrower entered into separate loan agreements with 13 financial institutions. Had the respondent-borrower entered into a separate mortgage deed with these financial institutions in order E to secure the loan, there would have been a separate document for distinct transactions. On proper construction of this indenture of mortgage, it can safely be regarded as 13 distinct transactions whict"! falls under Section 5 of the Act. [Para 32) _[52-G-H; 53-A-B] The Member, Board of Revenue vs. Arthur Paul Benthall 1955 SCR 842 - followed. F Halsbury's ~aw of England 41h Edition volume 44 p. G 399 - referred to. Case Law Reference 1955 SCR 842 followed. Para 16 H 38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R. A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6054 of2015 From the Judgment and Order dated 03.12.2012 of the High Court of Gujarat atAhmedabad in Stamp Reference No. B 1 of2011 Preetesh Kapur, Hemantika Wahi, Jesal Wahi for the Appellant. C. A.· Sundaram, Ananya Kumar, Pragya Chauhan, C Dheeraj Nair, Rohini Musa, Abhishek Gupta, Sandeep Singh, Shamik Bhatta, Gaurav Mitra, K. R. Sasiprabhu, Vishnu Sharma, Reha Mitra, Deepali Dwivedi, Somiran Sharma, Biju Raman Deb for the Respondents. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court on reference E made by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, State of Gujarat under Section 54(1A) of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 (in short, "the Act"), passed the impugned judgment and order dated 3.12.2012 in Stamp Reference No.1 /2011 answering the reference in favour of the respondent and against the . F Revenue holding that the respondent was not required to pay the dues of deficit stamp ~uty of Rs. 50,41,600/-. G H 3. The questions referred to the High Court for its opinion and decision arise as under:- (A) The deed of "indenture the deed of mortgage for delayed after assets" which was registered on 6.10.2009 vide Regn. No.3375 registered at office of Sub-Registrar, Mundra (District Kachchh) by the applicant has paid Rs.4,21,000/- whe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.