- (1.) The petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.4.1995 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak demanding deficient stamp duty. The petitioner-Company transferred certain properties to its Hundred percent subsidiary company vide registered sale deed dated 9.4.1990. As per Section 32 (2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), no stamp duty was leviable as the petitioner-Company had obtained a certificate as per provisions contained in para 119 Part I-B of Chapter I of the Haryana Stamp Manual. The petitioner-Company is having its properties at various places including Rajpura in District Patiala in the State of Punjab. The Company owned immovable property situated on the Sonepat Road in District Rohtak in the State of Haryana. M/s Satluj Trading Company Limited is a hundred percent wholly subsidiary Company of the petitioner-Company i.e M/s Industrial Cables Limited as per the certificate issued by Registrar of Companies dated 22.8.1989 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner-Company decided to transfer its property situated in Rohtak to its subsidiary Company M/s Satluj Trading Company Private Limited in the year 1989. Pursuant to the certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies dated 22.8.1989 (Anenxure P-1), the petitioner-Company applied to respondent no.2 for registering the sale deed in favour of the subsidiary Company for an amount of Rs.20,60,000/-. As per the certificate, on this application, the Collector made an endorsement under Section 32(2) of the Stamp Act. The endorsement made by the respondent no.2 is as under: "Certified that M/s Satluj Trading Company is 100% subsidiary Company of M/s Industrial Cable India Ltd. This document is not chargeable under paragraph 119(1) of the Haryana Stamp Manual 1899 as the transfer take place from a parent Company to a subsidiary Company. Sd/- Collector Rohtak 4.4.90"
(2.) After a lapse of more than three years on 9.6.1993, the petitioner-Company received a notice (Annexure P-3) to deposit the stamp duty of Rs. 3,19,300/- on the ground that Certificate (Annexure P-1) was obtained from the Registrar of Companies, Punjab whereas the property was situated in Haryana. The petitioner- Company gave its reply (Annexure P-4) dated 20.8.1993 clarifying that the stamp duty is not payable as per provision of Section 32(2)of the Act read with Para 119 of Part I Chapter I of the Punjab Stamp Manual, 1934. The petitioner-Company on enquiry came to know that respondent no.1 i.e Commissioner and Secretary, Revenue Department, Haryana, Chandigarh had directed respondent no.2 i.e Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Rohtak vide letter dated 9.3.1993 (Annexure P-5) to recover the stamp duty. Another notice dated 24.11.1994 was sent to the petitioner-Company and the petitioner-Company gave its reply dated 12.12.1994 (Annexure P-6) clarifying that the necessary certificate can also be obtained from the Registrar of Companies, Haryana and that the stamp duty was not payable by the petitioner-Company under Section 32(2) of the Act. It was further submitted that the petitioner-Company could make necessary efforts to get the letter issued from the Registrar of Companies Delhi , Haryana if need be.
(3.) In the written statement, a preliminary objection has been taken that as per Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Collector was not competent to exempt the stamp duty on the sale deed executed by the petitioner-Company. It was the State Government who has the power to exempt any instrument mentioned in Schedule I-A of the Act. The petitioner-Company had not obtained the said exemption certificate from the State Government and in the absence of that certificate, the Collector was not competent to exempt the Commissioner from payment of stamp duty. A reference has been made to a letter dated 4.1.1993 (Annexure R- 1) which was issued by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Revenue Department to the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak. In this letter, it has been stated that the sale deed No. 730 dated 25.4.1990 for an amount of Rs.20,60,000/- was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Rohtak. The purchasers are the sole subsidiary company of the main company. In the absence of a certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies under item 119 of the Haryana Stamp Manual, the Collector cannot grant exemption under Section 32(2) of the Act. Hence the deficient stamp duty be recovered. In the reply to the application, the respondents have placed on record Annexure R-1 which was the similar certificate granted for exemption (Reduction and Remission) of Stamp duty on transfer deeds under Section 9 of the Act towards M/s DLF Universal Ltd. The certificate has been issued by the State Government. In the absence of such a certificate issued by the State Government, the Collector was not competent to exempt the petitioner-Company from payment of stamp duty as per Annexure R-2 when the transfer had taken place.;