Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5.1 Sh. Batra further argued that section 47A is inapplicable and reliance on section 47A by the respondent is clearly an after-thought, misplaced and untenable. He argued that the respondent has attempted to justify the impugned order as being permissible under section 47A (3) read with section 73 of the Act, however, section 47A (3) is not applicable to the present case as none of the conditions precedent exist and section 73 of the Act has no connection with the issues involved in the present petition. Section 47A (3) pertains only to documents that can be registered under the Registration Act, 1908 whereas the scheme of amalgamation cannot be registered under the Registration Act, 1908, hence section 47A is ex facie inapplicable. The fact of registration of an instrument but omission to refer it to the Collector for determination of duty is a condition precedent for the exercise of suo motu power under section 47A (3) of the Act, therefore, suo motu power can only be exercised in respect of registered instruments which is not the case in the present matter. Sh. Batra further argued that even if it is assumed that section 47A is Signing Date:07.11.2024 W.P.(C) 5638/2014 Page 19 applicable to the present case, the petitioner filed Form 21 with the Registrar of Companies on 07.12.2011 and as per section 47A (3), the respondent could have exercised suo motu power within two years from the date of registration i.e. till 06.12.2013. However, the show-cause notice was issued on 20.03.2014 which is beyond the period of limitation provided under section 47A. Section 47A was enacted to remedy the mischief of undervaluation of immovable properties and is not applicable to the present case. The learned Senior Counsel cited V.N. Devadoss V Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector and Others, (2009) 7 SCC 438. 5.2 Sh. Batra primarily and forcefully argued that the scheme of amalgamation is exempted from payment of any stamp duty in terms of the 1937 Notification which specifically exempts duty on instruments transferring property between two subsidiary companies of each of which not less than 90% of the share capital is in the beneficial ownership of a common parent company. In the present case, more than 90% share capital of the petitioner and ACIPL is held by a common parent company i.e. Holderind. Therefore, the 1937 Notification exempts the scheme of amalgamation from any stamp Signing Date:07.11.2024 W.P.(C) 5638/2014 Page 20 duty. Sh. Batra in support of his argument cited Delhi Towers Ltd. wherein it was held that the 1937 Notification is applicable and binding.