Dilemma of Duty: Companies in a fix as State demands Stamp Duties already paid as per Central law
– Sikha Bansal and Nitu Poddar | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
– Published in Moneylife on December 16, 2025
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (“Stamp Act”) was amended in 2019 by the Finance Act, 2019 (“Amendment”), broadly – to introduce a unified mechanism for levy and collection stamp duty on issuance and transfer of securities, by insertion of sections 4(3), 9A, 9B, 62A, 73A, Article 56A among others. That Amendment introduced a unified, nationally applicable stamp duty framework that prescribes 0.005% as the duty on the issue of shares, to be collected centrally through depositories. This is how the era of dematerialised issuance of capital market instruments was ushered and furthered.
After more than 5 years of the Amendment, Delhi-based companies have begun receiving notices from the Delhi Revenue Department questioning the stamp duty paid on the issue of shares. The Department has, in fact, issued Letters to the depositories [NSDL, CDSL] asserting that stamp duty ought to have been paid at the rate of 0.1% on the value of shares issued, based on Article 19 of the State stamp law, disregarding the 2019 Amendment, and prohibiting the depositories from collecting stamp duties on their behalf.

The State move has triggered uncertainty regarding share issuances effected after 1 July 2020, when the amended Stamp Act came into force. The communications issued by the Revenue Department of Delhi , with an ask of duty which is 20 times more than the rate approved by the Parliament, disregard and challenge this uniform regime, leaving the companies grappling with compliance ambiguity and the risk of retrospective financial exposure, despite having followed the statutory mechanism approved by the Parliament.
If other States start asking for duties as per their respective laws, the intended harmonisation of stamp laws will soon turn into a cacophony!
This article touches upon the objective of the Amendments and looks for potential answers on the way forward.
The Amendment: a Unified Scheme
Pursuant to the Amendment, sections 9A and 9B were introduced in the Stamp Act. Section 9A is a non-obstante provision, which mandates that the depositories shall collect the duty on behalf of the State Government (“SG”) from the issuer, on the total market value of the securities. Similar provisions are there to deal with sale or transfer of securities. Section 9A(2) provides for levy of stamp duty as per the applicable rates given in Schedule I. Currently, as per Article 19 read with Article 56A of Schedule I, the stamp duty on the issue of shares is fixed at 0.005%.
Notably, section 9A(3) expressly prohibits SGs from levying or collecting stamp duty on instruments covered under Section 9A(1), including the issue/sale/transfer of shares. Therefore, it is clear from a reading of bare provisions of the Stamp Act, that it was a conscious call to unify the mechanism for levy and collection of stamp duties, albeit, the right of the SGs to receive the duty remains protected – as the depositories will collect the stamp duty, only on behalf of the SGs.
Rationale for the Amendment
The rationale and intent behind the Amendments was given in the Statement of Objects and Reasons in the Finance Bill, 2019 as follows:
“13. Clauses 11 to 21 of the Bill seek to amend the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for levy and administration of stamp duty on securities market instruments by the States at one place through one agency, viz., through Stock Exchanges or its Clearing Corporation or Depositories on one instrument, and for appropriately sharing the same with respective State Governments based on State of domicile of the ultimate buying client.”
The Press Release by the Ministry of Finance dated Feb 21, 2019 states that, “In order to facilitate ease of doing business and to bring in uniformity and affordability of the stamp duty on securities across States and thereby build a pan-India securities market, the Central Government, after due deliberations, in exercise of powers under Entry 91 of the List I and Entry 44 of List III of the 7th Schedule of Indian Constitution, has decided to amend the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 to create the legal and institutional mechanism to enable states to collect stamp duty on securities market instruments at one place by one agency (through Stock Exchanges or Clearing Corporations authorized by it or by the Depositories) on one Instrument and develop a mechanism for appropriately sharing the stamp duty with relevant State Governments.”
Further clarification on implementation of the Amendments was given vide Press Release dated June 30, 2020 which also reiterated the above and indicated that the Amendments were done after due consultation with State Governments.
See also, RBI Press Release dated July 1, 2020.
As it appears from the aforesaid Press Release, and also the Budget Speech for 2018-19 by the then Finance Minister, Shri Arun Jaitely, necessary consultation has been done with the States before amending the Central Act. Section 9A(4) specifically mandates that the 2019 Rules governing collection of stamp duty through depositories be framed in consultation with SGs
The question of constitutionality and legal principles
The issue, as it appears, involves a question of constitutionality. The Centre has enacted the Amendments citing “Entry 91 of List I: rates of stamp duty on instruments including transfer of shares and debentures” and “Entry 44 of List III: stamp duties other than judicial stamps, excluding “rates of stamp duty”.
However, the Delhi Revenue Department appears to be disregarding the Amendments possibly on the following grounds:
- Entry 63 of List II covers “rates of stamp duty” on documents other than those in List I. As such, this is the Entry which empowers the SG to decide on the rates of stamp duty.
- Entry 91 of List I covers only “transfer” of shares, not “issue” of shares. As such, SG is the appropriate authority which can levy stamp duty on “issue of shares”.
- Entry 44 of List III excludes “rates of stamp duty” from the concurrent list (which might lead to an inference that Centre cannot make laws on rates of stamp duty).
- A further contention is that the depositories were not authorised by the Delhi Government to collect stamp duty on its behalf.
Now, the question of constitutionality is itself a complicated matter, and is subject to judicial examination and interpretation. However, until the question of constitutionality is settled, any act/omission to act should ideally be judged on the basis of these two very important principles: One, Central law prevails over State laws, and two, presumption of validity of laws, as discussed below.
Prevalence of Central Law over State Law
First, that in case of inconsistency, if at all, between the law prescribed by the Centre and law prescribed by the State, the Central law prevails. Once Parliament legislates within its competence, and particularly when the legislation is later in time and designed to create a comprehensive framework, the Central law prevails in case of conflict. This is also referred to as doctrine of repugnancy. The Supreme Court has consistently affirmed the primacy of Parliamentary legislation in cases of overlap or conflict.
See an exhaustive discussion on the doctrine of repugnancy in Forum for People’s Collective Efforts (FPCE) & Anr. v. the State of West Bengal and Others (2021). See also, I.T.C. Ltd. Etc v. State Of Karnataka (1985), in which the Supreme Court also observed that, “There may also be cases where despite an entry being in List II, the Parliament may under the provisions of Art. 246(3) take over that particular field and legislate on that subject which will debar the late legislative from adding or passing any such legislation which has been taken over under Act. 246(3).” See also, Baijnath Kedia v. State Of Bihar(1969).
Applied to the present context, the intent behind the 2019 amendment was unambiguous – to harmonise stamp duty on securities across India and eliminate State-level divergences that impede market efficiency.
Presumption of validity of law
Secondly, it is a well-established principle that there is a presumption always in favour of constitutionality of law, until a competent court declares it unconstitutional. The onus to prove otherwise is on the person challenging it. In Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India and Others, the Supreme Court observed, “ . . .the presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment, and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles.” See also, Nand Kishore v. State of Punjab, Dharmendra Kirthal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another.
Therefore, in so far the question of constitutionality of the Stamp Amendments is concerned, the said Amendments have not been struck down by any court of law. Hence, there shall be a presumption that the Amendments are constitutionally valid and the stakeholders remain bound by the central framework.
Depositories as statutory collecting agents
The contention that depositories require authorisation from individual State Governments is misplaced. Depositories collect stamp duty not as agents appointed by States but as statutory collecting authorities designated by Parliament under the Act read with Rules. Once Parliament has prescribed the mode of collection, State consent is not required.
Could Companies have paid any duty other than 0.005%?
Operationally, no. Companies issuing shares in dematerialised form have no option but to pay stamp duty at the rate of 0.005 percent. Depositories auto-calculate and collect duty at 0.005% based on the consideration value, leaving no discretion to issuers. The stamp duty calculator on the website of the depository also calculates the duty at the rate of 0.005% of the issue size. Further, CDSL’s SOP states, “the issuers have to remit applicable stamp duty to CDSL in the designated bank account before executing the corporate action in the system. If sufficient stamp duty amount is not present against the issuer, then the corporate action setup/ file uploaded by RTA remains under ‘Pending for Stamp Duty’ Status in CDSL system. In case of issuance stamp duty is applicable @0.005% of the consideration value. A stamp duty calculator has also been provided on the website for the purpose of applicable stamp duty. “
Potential steps for the companies
From the discussion above, it is clear that:
- the Amendment has been issued by the Central Government,
- the Amendment is later in time than the Delhi Amendment Act, 2001,
- so far, no competent court of law has declared it unconstitutional, and
- duty paid by companies was not discretionary or something which companies would have controlled, but statutorily embedded into the functioning of the centralised system under Section 9A.
As such, all concerned are bound by such law. No fault can lie with the issuer companies which simply complied by the Centre-enacted law, and paid duty as per directions of authorities.
Given the situation, the companies which receive any similar notice can take the following steps (to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis):
- Respond to the notices by citing Section 9A and enclosing evidence of duty paid through the depository;
- Seek clarification from the Depositories and the Ministry of Finance;
- Consider approaching the High Court by filing a writ under Article 226 to challenge the notices if enforcement action is initiated;
- Evaluate whether any disclosure is necessary in the financial statements, depending on the wording of the notice and the likelihood of enforcement.
Closing Remarks
The unified stamp duty framework introduced in 2020 is a considered step calling for centralisation of duty collection on securities. As the communications by the Delhi Revenue Department attempt to enforce a pre-2020 State rate, it is quite possible that the issue goes for judicial determination, mainly on the grounds of constitutionality. In any case, until the question of constitutionality is determined, the presumption of validity exists in favour of the Amendments.
Our other resources:
