Moreover, in reviewing the stamp legislation of other States, it appears that there is no other State that has amended the corresponding provision in its Stamp Duty Act in order to introduce “different transactions” within its scope. From our point of view (assuming that the Act, as presented by the Supreme Court, is the correct judicial interpretation of the legislative intent underlying the amendment of Section 5 of the Gujarat Stamp Act 1958), all of these obligations (whether through syndicated loans or separate loan agreements), who have only one instrument that creates a mortgage on real estate in Gujarat to secure loans from several banks for the benefit of a guarantee agent acting for all lenders, would be treated as different transactions and would be responsible for paying stamp duty in Gujarat, as if separate mortgage agreements were registered for each bank. If such an application for review is again submitted to the Supreme Court, one can only hope that the Supreme Court will follow the approach that creates the mortgage of real estate to guarantee the loans of several banks in favor of a security agent acting for all. lenders as a single transaction, unlike multiple transactions. Can I find out how much construction stamp duty on land 618.43 m² must be paid in poll No. 102, vasna chacharwadi village, Ta: Sanand, Distr: Ahmedabad. It is a motionless property. The buyer is a man. Stamps or non-postage stamps are obtained at one node (M.S. Building, Darwaja Office) and then distributed to the rest of Gujarat. The head of the knot is the Superintendent of Stamps. Non-postage stamps are received by India Security Press Nasik and distributed to the State-run County Finance Offices.
For a list of registration and non-registration documents, see the issue of stamp taxes in the state of Gujarat. With respect to the interpretation of the interaction between an instrument and a transaction in the context of section 5 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958, the Supreme Court`s decision in Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Coastal Gujarat Power Ltd. may have important implications for the established legal principle of not going beyond the corporate veil. In the present case, it is unaware of the presence of an agent in the transaction and treats each beneficiary as a separate beneficiary of enforcement. This can have disastrous consequences, for example when it comes to a foundation for social assistance to children, in which beneficiaries could meet thousands of unknown legal entities. And what about trusts that don`t have a particular group of beneficiaries? The problem can be transported into situations similar to those of an investment fund (investing on behalf of thousands of investors). Would an agreement between an investment fund and a bank, for example, be treated as a separate transaction per profitable investor? The seriousness of the problem is illustrated by a situation in which investment funds (or trusts) enter into a contract. . . .