r' )- ^ -.'.^ s^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ilADHYA PRADF.SH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NQ.IS1'1 OF 1996 1.M IN THE MATTER OF s ^^^. :^^ -F.4PETITIONERS; "s.v 1 ^ ^"; n •; u ^.'" " •n • ; t! •^-^ ^ /; '-—'^'J ^m^y RESPONDEMTS £'. 4, HIRA FERRO ALLOYS LIMITED, a compargy duly incarporated under the relevant provisisons of the CoiTipani&s Acty 1951, having i t.5 registered off'ics at Plot No. 567-B Urla Industrial Area, Raipur M«Fa. HIRfi EXIM LIMITED, a company duly incorporated und&r the releyant provisions of" the Irsdxan Coirtpaniss Acty 1951,. having its registered office at Ore Kutir, Jail Road, Raipur M»P^ HIRA STEELS company du.ly ursder the provislsons Qf LIMITED, a incarporated relevarst. the Indian Companiss Acty 1951,, having its registered of'fics at "Sushila", 5, Park Av&nue, Choubey Colany.Raipur M«P« ALOK FERRO ALLOYS LIMITED, a copany duly incorporated under the relevant provisisons of ths Companiss Act, 1951, having its regxstered office at Urla industrial Ar^ay Raipur M.p, BAJRANG LAL AGRAWAL, son of Shri R.R.Agra^aly aged 42 years, Share holder and Director of- the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 ^ resident af' 5 Park Aversuey Choubey Colony., Raipur M<p« VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH^ through the Collector, Raipur M.P. ^y^ •••v^ /s -2- ^i. ^ ^ ^.. :^^ ..'"); ^ I/ .^ // ^ .^ •4 PETITiaN INDIA 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND SUPERINTENDENT OF STAMPS, Goyernirient. of Madhya pradeshy G^alior S&>1«P« 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR and Collector of' Qtamps;. Raipur M.P. 4. STATE BANK QF Ih4DIA, Phaphadih BranchyRaipur M«P» 5. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, Raipur Branch, Jawahar Nagary Raipur M«P« UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTIOW OF ^ XI-HC-22 W^T^T f^TW^S^T ^RT^^Rf^T T^T^NI^t^, ^TftOTT^, [sf^tWy ^i^i^i ^wrai 311^1 M5|Ch .^•.?:..^J. ^1 °>L ^ 200 3T^T^<TT^H:<[Tf?cT DIVISION BENCH: - HON'BLE SHRI FAKHRUDDSN & HON'BLE SHRi SU1»S5L IAQ.CJ. KUMAR SINHA. J. 11/03/2QQ5:- ^., wlth Shri B.P. Sharma counsej for the appearijig Learned counsel matter is squareiy covered by| Dlvision Bench of the High CoL|rt bearing Writ Petition No.4854 matter has also been repo?ted| .4854 of1999-SVS/s.Vikas The points raised in thi^ raised in aforesaid writ petitiorts Division Bench oftheHighCou|t while deciding the aforesaid obsen/ed as under: chi^?<n4i'i WT^ff^ te^t <Ri<-4i< ^3Tf^q"3TT^T Shri Y.K. Munshi, Sr. M^. petitioners. Shri Prashant Mishra, 4ddi. Advocate General, with Shri N.K. Agrawal, Dy. A.G., for the State/r^spondents. Heard. This case has been rec4ived on transfer from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. 4f for the State very falrly stated that thls order dated 07/02/2003 passed by the of Madhya Pradesh in bunch of cases 1999 and the connected matters. This in 2003 (i) IVIPJR - SN 62 W.P. No. Industries Vs. State of M.P.} Coriicrete petition are similar to that of the points and the same have been decided by of Madhya Pradesh. !t is submitted that writ petitions, the Division Bench has (lft^^f^r) ^tl- XI-HC-22 HIHt<TT$ft^8cn 3^T ^NId^, ^Tfi^^l^, ic|^l<H^< 3ll^l ^51 cn ^...W.-.B.^.V^.^ ,., ^rc^[< ^n^T^r f^ri^w^r $FW^;^rf|cT 3:n^T^<TT^K^cr (a) "There is a namely, stamp (b)The State Leg|' provide the read with Entrtf Schedule of the| (c) There Is no di^( relating to imm^ stamp duty because it issit similar propertyl on the ground area; (d) Section 75 of ti|i< provlso to effect from the forcei.e.25/01/1 Sectibn wtio (e) The retroactivit^ the persons wouid be liablel persons who h^ wouid not chi^I<n41^ ^i^^T^te^i^K-dK ^3:rf^RT3TI^T diff^rence between the l^vo concepts, <^uty and rate ofduty; (slature has the competence to of stamp duty as per Entry 63 44 of List-itl of the Seventh ^onstitution; lcrimination because a document imm^vable prope?1y is iiabfe to extra unlier Section 75 of the 1993 Act tuated within the block whereas a |is not Siabte to excess duty sotely |t is situated within the Municlpa! tihe 1993 Act is intra vires and the 75 is to begiven retrospective date when Section 75 came into i994;and would have iimited effect so that have not paid the stamp duty |to pay under the proviso but the ^ve paid under the main provision be enfcitled to refund." ^ (^y^) XI-HC-22 ^3TT^T^)T RFif^3:n^T t^F^rf^ $b^lcb^T^f T<- •i?, <' '\^^M ^f-./ Hl^^TT^^Ict) 3^T ^I^IKrl^, ^Tfl^4l<o, [s«ni^l^< 3ll^l M?ich ^...\^:^.^\<""^'Wl 200 \ o' 3:n^T?:CT'^K^rfN' ^ Learned counsel appearj iegai position. !n view of the submissioi] parties and, particulariy the fac the decision of the Division Ber|i petition stands finaiiy disposed Learned counsei for th deposjt. The securlty amount, if be no order as to costs. A. |any, deposited, be refunded. There shai! Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice ct)i^fci41vi ^i^QiT^:tel:^'<f^^<ii< ^3Tf^q'3TT^?r |ng for the petitioner does not dispute this ^s made by the counse! appearing for the |t that this matter is squareiy covered by lch of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, this rfwith the obsen/ations quoted above. petitioners prays for refund of security Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge (^^Ra^l)