In Brief
An Asset Reconstruction Company (ARCIL) acquired financial assets from Oriental Bank of Commerce under a deed of assignment in 2008 and paid stamp duty as a conveyance under Article 20(a) of the Bombay Stamp Act. The tax authorities later demanded additional duty, arguing that a Power of Attorney referenced in the assignment's schedule should be separately taxed under Article 45(f). The High Court agreed. The Supreme Court allowed ARCIL's appeal, holding that once a composite instrument is properly charged under the correct provision, it cannot be re-charged under another. The Power of Attorney was never a separate instrument and the power of sale derived from the Securitization Act itself, not an independent document, so Article 45(f) did not apply.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.