lr7'? '.L *u>.d«Mt»<tik.*K-W MlUKS3 ^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF MfiDHYfi PRADESH AT JfiBALPUI in PETITION NDj°t5-tiF 1996 IN THE MfiTTER OF PETITIONERSs RESPONDENTi "t-^ g, M/S ftLBRIGHT STEEt INDUSTRIES LIMITED, ^ ^ company duly incor under the r' provisions of the Coi Act, 1956, having registered office at. Ravi Nagar, Raipur 492 and a newly commissioned roanuf'acturing unit at 11, Rawabhata (Urla) Industrial Area, Raipur 493 22-1. RflMESHUfiR PRfiSAD HOLflNI, sged 43 years, son of late Gordhan Das Holani, Indian Citizen, Shara—holder and Director ot M/s filbright Ltd., 11, Industrial Steel Industries Rawabhata (Urla) firea, Raipur, 493 221, H.P. JfiGDISH PRASfiD HOLfiNI, aged 48 ysars, Ssn o-f' l.ate Gordhandas Holani, Indian Citizen, Shara-holder and Director o<* M/s Alariqht Steel Industries Limited, resident of P-36, Indian EKchange Palace, Calcutta-1. SMT. BARJI DEVI HOLfiNI. aged 75 years, isiidow of Late Gordhan Das Holani, Indian Citizen and Guarantor, R/o P—36, Indian EKchange Palace, Calcutta — 1. VERSUS THE STATE OF MflDHYA PRfiDESH, through the Collector, Raipur H.p. THE INSPECTOR GENERftL OF REGISTRfiTION AND SUPERINTENDENT OF STAMPS, GovernmeRt of Madhy-a Pradesh, Gwalior M.P. ,& -I/1 . / II/ . '•?'./'' 'Wi'"' \ r/': 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR and Collector af Stanps, Raipur M.p. 4. STfiTE BANK OF INDIfi, body corporated having common seal and perpetual succession, having interalia branchas at Urla Industrial irea, Fafadih and S.-S.I. (Fafadih) Raipur, M.P. PETITION UNDER ARTICLES VS.b/VZJ DF'THE CONSTITUTII INDIfi OF XI-HC-22 3^'^FIRTO'^ ®Tfly'l6,fc|cliyy<, (3?1 M^^» —..^.^../..2fe.3/£.^ *ll*4Mia»<l|ch"""""""""""" g^ 2W— sn^r^r R-ii+sn^r sbfiittffea wi^i ^•wiwaf?cr 'nilfl-141'1 HIHIlYff fel^t <Fa1%l<. ^3rf^IT3TI^T DiViSlOM BENCH: & HON'BLE SHR! SUNIL KUlVIAR SINHA. J Shri Y.K. Munshi, Sr. ^dv., with Shri B.P. Sharma counse! for the petitioners. Shri Prashant Mishral Agrawai, Dy. A.G., for the Stat^/ Heard. Addl. Advocate General, with Shri N.K. i/respondents. This case has been r Madhya Pradesh. ^ceived on transfer from the High Court of Leamed counsel matter is squarely covered Division Bench of the High bearing Writ Petition No.485 matter has aiso been appe^ring for the State very fairty stated that this ()y order dated 07/02/2003 passed by the Qourt of Madhya Pradesh in bunch of cases of 1999 and the connected matters. This in 2003 (!) MPJR Vikas aoncrete Industries Vs. State of M.P.} this The points raised in raised in aforesaid writ petit]' Division Bench of the High C\ while deciding the aforesaip observed as under: petition are similar to that of the points ons and the same have been decided bv >urt of Madhya Pradesh. It is submitted that writ petitions, the Division Bench has (^^?r) :1 :\^" 1 XI-HC-22 •sfT^rqir f^iRisn^r sti*l flf?cT 3^ '<iww<i, w^\ww, Ridlti^ 3TT^5T qa«»i *<|t<ril sbtll* •-'••••••••••-"u**'"^q- 2^- S<1^1 6«fllW<lf?tT -2-. (a) "There is a dii namely, stamp "he State Lefeislature provide the ra| read w h En| Schedule of th< (c) There is no df relating to imi stamp duty because it is similar propert^ on the groun' area; (d) Section 75 6f proviso to effect from th^ fores i.e. 25/0' irt (e) The 4'etroactiv}y the persons v]i would be liabll persons who would not be <tii<<Fci<(1-i iit«iTffteA<.f«t«i< ^3Tf^T3TI^T ference between the two concepts, |duty and rate of duty; has the competence to tes of stamp duty as per Entry 63 |:ry 44 of List-lii of the Seventh fe Constitution; liscrimlnation because a document i|novabie properiy is iiable to extra Section 75 of the 1993 Act tituated within the block whereas a is not liable t6 excess duty solely it is situated within the Municipal Ithe 1993 Act is intra vires and th@ Sec|tion 75 is to be given retrospective date when Section 75.eame into 1/1994;and would have limited effect so that /ho have not paid the stamp duty •l|s to pay under the proviso but the rave paid under the main provision ^ntitied to refund." (4t^y^) WJ XI-HC-22 3TI^T?)T f^TWSn^T sfitfitigfer .iJ^'"1 l^ *ll*iyiTsh*l|ch 3^ '<IN|C|<1, »Tf1<1<16, lcl^iy^ 3<1^| 4sl<h —C^.l^./.2:.?.^?^_ / sn^TrenwBf^tr •3 Learned counsel appe4ring for the petitioner does not dispute this legal position. !n view of the submiss parties and, particularly the the decision of the Division Bi petition stands finally disposei pns made by the counsel appearing for the that this matter is squarely covered by |nch bf High Court ofMadhya Pradesh, this of with the obser^ations quoted above. Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice »bi<iFci<fl-iiiictT^'fe^ <KIW( ^Tsrf^rsn^T Learned counsel for t(ie petitioners prays for refund of securifry deposlt. The security amount, be no order as to costs. any, deposited, be refunded. There shal Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge