The legal provisions relating to the issue are sections 3 to 6 of the law. Section 3 is the section of the levy and provides that, subject to certain exceptions, any instrument mentioned in the scheme of the act is calculated as the very obligation to make it the obligation. Section 4 specifies that, in the case of a sale, mortgage or transaction, several instruments are used to complete the transaction, only one of which, designated as the primary instrument, must be taxed by the Schedule 1 duty and that the other instruments must be paid with a rupee obligation. Section 5 specifies that any instrument that includes or concerns several different situations is to be expected with the total amount of tasks by which separate legal acts, which involve or relate to each of these points, must be compensated under the law. Paragraph 6, to the extent essential, reads: “Subject to the provisions of the last section, an instrument that is framed in such a way that it is included in two or more of the descriptions in Schedule I, if the tasks described in it are different, should only be compensated by the highest tasks of those tasks.” However, for other States of India, the Supreme Court decision, in the absence of provisions similar to Section 5 of the Gujarat Stamp Act of 1958, will not have a negative effect, even if there is only one act (mortgage) that has been committed by pawning a property in the state in order to insure loans from several banks to a security agent working for several lenders. whether the loan was lent through a consortium. [R1] Since then, the Reserve Bank of India has authorized the banks to decide how the consortium will operate. Banks can therefore decide on all matters, including interest rates, cap allocation, allocation scheme, ad hoc limits, etc., within the consortium that complies with the guidelines issued by Reserved Bank. Moreover, in the context of the examination of stamps in other states, there does not appear to be any other state that has amended the corresponding provision of its stamp duty law to introduce “different transactions” into its scope. We believe (assuming that the Supreme Court correctly interpreted the legislative intent behind the amendment to Section 5 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958), under the Supreme Court decision, all bonds (whether through syndicated loans or separate loan contracts) that have only an instrument to create a mortgage on a property in Gujarat to insure loans from several banks to an agent for safety.
For all lenders, these would be separate transactions and would be responsible for paying stamp duty in Gujarat, as if separate mortgages were registered for each bank. … Damodar`s case briefly explained that it had reached an agreement with PWH (called the consortium agreement) with which it was agreed, among other things, that Damodar was the partner of PWH… In favor of Hazama as part of his contract with Hazama. In the consortium agreement, Hazama was designated as a customer. As part of the consortium agreement, parts of the work awarded… from Hazama to PWH was divided between Damador and PWH. The liability of the parties to the consortium agreement should be calculated on the basis of the portion of each party`s contractual value. Damodar… The point of the decision is the meaning that is to be recognized in the words “different things” in section 5.
The assertion that pleased the majority of scholarly judges is that the word “business” in section 5 is synonymous with “description” of section 6 and that they both refer to the different categories of instruments defined in the calendar.