% .,n^^ 1. '— .^ .., s:'f3X^ ("^ 1N THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR .„-„ -.-—J}^ MP.IT PETITION NOtfTT OF 1996 /' ^^ ^'n.<^ IN THE MATTER OF PETITiqNERSs '- ^. ^''s%.^ ..- \ a il »^" ? II -/ i! ^ :.>-^' RESPONDENTS ISPAT PRIVATE a conipany duly 1. VANDANA LI11ITED, incorporatsd undsr the Companies ' Act y 1956-y havirag it£ registered office/maniifacturirrg ursit at 6-7-8 Sector <?C? Urla. Industrial Area^ Raipur M»P» 2. 8UBHASH CHAND AGRAUAL. aged 36 yearsy 5cssrs of Sh."-i Niranjanlal figrawal., Indiars cit.izsrs^ share-holdsr ar§d Dirsctar of' the Petitiansr No. 1, .resident of M»G.Roady Raiipur M«Pe VERSUS -1. TS-IE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, through ths Collect.or.. Raipur M»P« ' -' 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND SUPERINTENDENT OF STAMPS, Governjnent of Nadhya Pradesh, Gwalior M«P» 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR and Collector of Stamps^ Rai M.P. 4. STATE BANK OF INDIft, Phaphadih Brarich^Raipur i"l»P« PEJ^PON UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF TRE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ~~~ XI-HC-22 3TT^T^T RFT 3TT^T ^ri^^rfN' ^3[ ^iqi<rt<q, ^Tfi<H^(o, (®i<nwy 3ii^i ^5ic»» ,.^.:-/.-..^./f../.f£ t|Wdltht|i«fe*sv"/'""<>/'^'<-<^ 2W)- ^ ^Tli^T ^cTTW^fri^r ai^soN.B»ia-i:- <=hl^41^ *41^^T^tel<ft'<fa^K ^3Tf^R'3:n^T Shri Y.K. Munshi, Sr. /&*lJv., with Shri B.P. Sharma counsel for the. petitioners. - Shri Prashant Mishra, Agrawa!, Dy. A.G., for the Stat|e/ Heard. Thls case has been rel ^a.Pradesh.. . - Learned counsel apj3eaiti matter is squareiy covered bl bearing' Writ' Petition No.4854 .rnatter.has a.ls-o-.been reported. Addl. Advocate Gerseral, with Shri N.K. ^respondents. .eived .011 transfer from the.High Court of ng for the State very fairEy stateci that thls • order dated 07/02/2003 passed by the Division Bench of the High Cc|urt of Madhya Pradesh in bunch of cases of 1999 and the connected matters. This in.20Q31imPJR-:,Sy;S2_fi^.P.J^o,4854 ^ The points rais'ed in th raised .ia'aforesaidwrit petitl^ns .and the same have been declded by .Division Bench of the Hlgh Coii while deciding. the aforesaidl as under: |s petltion are simiiar to that of the points |rt of Madhya Pradesh» it is-sybmitted that writ petitions, the Dlvision Bench has (^^fe^) 't XI-HC-22 W^T^FT {^TT^3TT^T ^rw^f^T Yc* 3=sr ^i^Kn^, ^T[i<M^<o, f®idi^y 3<i^i M?< cn ^.^:.t.^l?.f.!?£. ^..^.................. ^ ^ftO- ^\ ^i^^i w^icn 3TI^T ^<TTW^r —^-— itice discrlTiiiiation (a) "There is a differai| narneiy, stamp.dufr^ (b)The State Legisk provjde the rates read with Entry Scheduie of the Co|- (c) There is no s'elating to immov^bie stamp duty. under| .because it is situal slmiiar property Is on the ground It 1| area; (d) Section 75 of the proviso to Section effect from the dal TOrcel.e. 25/01/19^4; (e) The' retroactlvjty w^uid the persons' who wouid be iiable to.\ persons who ha.ve | would not be entitleM between the two concepts, and taate ofduty; ^ture . has the comp'etence to |3f stamp duty as per Entry 63 H of List-111 of the SevenSh hstitutjors; because a document property is iiable to extra Section 75 of the 1.993 Act ted withjn the block •wherea.s. a tiot to excess duty so'ieiy .situated wthm the l^unicipa! Learned counsei appearin sgal positsQn.. ,. ,. cbi^fd4)^ ^i^^Tifte^ <Ri<^i< ^3ri^T3TT^T ! 993 Act. i.s intra.vlres and the 175 is to be given retrospective te when . Section 75 came into !•; and have Slmited effect so that ^save not the duty [pay under the pro.viso but the paid under the main provision to refund." for the petitioner does not dispute this (<^y^) II: 1H y ?'Ti5 XI-HC-22 3^ <^j^t<n^, ^^^(o, {cidi^y 311^1 M5|Cf» —....tv..^:...^^.<s../2^ '^ WQ- /^ <-ri*ICfT0WT^> W^T^T f^it^3TI^T $bHi<=b^f^r \&J( \r ^ •^ ^- SubbU 3TI^T5^<TTW:^f?cT ^. 3- in view of the'submissions parti.es and,. particula'riy the fact the decision of the Dlvislon Bench petition stands finaily dispose.d of \ Learned counse! for-the (:|etitlonBrs prays for.refund of security deposit. The security amount, if an(/, deposlted, be refunded. There shali be no order as to.qosts. » Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice cbi<<f^i4iTi ^i^^T^teT^t<Ri^« ^)3Tf^T3TT^T |made by the counsei appearing fbr the |hat this matter is squareiy covered by |of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, this l^ith the obsen/ations quoted above. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ((ft^^f^')