& x. it“ (Q The humble petitian of the petitioners abnvenamed MAST REBPECTFULLY : SHENETH IN THE HxGH COURT OF MADHYA PR BES AT JAB LPUR A \‘V Q¢22\ HRIT PETITI BF 4?9& IN THE HATTER HF \ PETITIONERS: 1. M/S HIRA FERRD ALLOYS £é» LIMITED, a campany duly incorporated under the relevant pravisians of the Companies Act, 1?5b, having its regigtered office at 567—3, 5&8 and 553-3, Urla L Industrial Complex, Raipur, 4932a1 (M.P.). E. BAJRANGL L AGRAHAL, SEN ’BF Ram Richhpal Agrawal, Director and Share‘holder M/s Hiré Ferro A11oys Ltd., R/a Chouhey Calany, Raipur M.P. VERSUE RESPQND NTS 1. THE STATE DF MADH¥A FRADESH, through the Collector, Raipur M.P. E. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BF REGISTRATIDN 1/ AND SUPERINTENDENT DP STAMPS, Government of Hadhya Pradesh, Gwaliuf M.F. 3. INBUSTRIAL DEVELDPMENT BANK OF INDIA (IDBI) a Curpnration eStablished by the Industrial Develnpment Bank uf India Act 1964, and having itg Head DFfice at IDBI Tuwer, Cuffe Parade. Bombay ’ 400 005. PETITIHN UNDER ARTICLES gab/3&7 BF THE CGNSTITUTIDN nF INDIA ~ XI—HC-ZZ HW,W,W mm w. HE 299.. m (@W) (Rv\€\V\ \" \J‘ XI—HC—22 HW,W,W Wm (a) “There is a differende between the two concepts, namely, stamp duty arxd raie of duty; (b) The State Legislature has the compaencerto provide the raies of stamp duty a3 per Entry 63 read with Entry 44 of List-iii of the Seventh Schedule o§ the Con: (c) There i$ no discrim Mating to immovab stamp duty under £ because it is situate 3imi!ar property is m on the ground it is area; (d) Section 75 of ihe 1$ proviso to Sec’tion 7 effect from the date force i.e. 25/01,!1994 (e) The retraaetivity wcL the persons who hz wouid be iiable t0 p persons who have p wouid nor. be enritied \x stitution; nation because a document e property is iiabie to extra Section 75 of the 1993 Act d within the block whereas a it liabie to excess duty solely situated within the Municipal 193 Act is intra vires'and the p is to be given retrospective when Section 75 came into and id have limited effect e0 that ive not paid the stamp duty ay' under the proviso but the aid under the main provision to refund 4 5 t f’’s /f/‘: idy“M%\ °“\\V \ (heW) TM vr1/c/ //sifi t Wm....$ w fa c/o ZZ/Pé Fri 2w .m mam mm mtdk' WWW ”L WW§WW %a¢%mn%¥r XI-HC-22 WW WW \‘ 1 W” Learned counsel appearing !egal position. in View of the submissions r tade by the counsel appearing for the parties and, particularly the fact ttat this matter is squarely covered by 3f High Court of Madhya Pradesh, this the decision of the Division Bench petition stands finally dispoeed of with the observations quoted above. atitioners prays for refund of security Learned counsel for the pe deposit. The security amount, if any , deposited, be refunded. There shall be no order as to costs. \h‘ Sd/- Acting Chief Justice \\Y for the petitioner does not dispute this §d/= §nnii Knmar giniae dodge t1? é (@W)