ME N$m xMQE mmmmq U ED$$&$ wm%mmm$% M$mbrm$m xmww wWMMMMmE$mwWSQmm A$$$ E§¢ mmbm$w 1¢mm nmmw%£% wmwéwdm rwxw1mwu w muawmaw auww Mnnmwwmwmwmm 13Rmw &rm wmwmqmnw mwm1wmwm¢3m w% 1ym naawmnwmm %n¢. ¢%w¢» $mmw$m m wmmwmwmwmmaw«mmmuww wl m3mwym:&ww Ewawmu%:& w ww 1 1 ww ~ $ w 3 w 3 m m w ~ “wwwww; 3am“. $1w¢+ Minu_ e¢1 v+m "Va ph ma. .. M. t. m. mmfn £nw.m1¢mmm$mwm u% mrww wnm1Cmwam~ mvmwmjnwnmw w3a wwwmnwmw Exm $m1 mr¢mmw1cmm mmamm2w wwwnm1w.rwn. 1am ml km #mmmwm £mmmwa mmwm1w an $ w 1w. Am91v Emmsm mwjmwu £w%m am wwww %.x.mw$mw.m3mwml yawmm% mam wwwmm1mw Exm $m1 mrwwmw Wmmm waEwmam A1¢muw r1mnu 1km ml&¢« mrmwwmm%wm Emmwwa mwww$% 3.w. €mmm¢m mmmvmzmm%%m %. M$m m4%dm m1 33w$%1 mmwmmmm% wrwm$w$ w3m mmwwmm1mmw wmwm1w $uwu 1xm HEmvmm%Dm mmammnw U1 wmmwm4m$dwm£ 32m cwmmwaqm1umg4m1 m4$3wma mn¢m1$§m3w mw 3mmww 1wmammsw mawwwmq m Eu1u 1 mmmwm&m$m w1m m1w%wmu wmwvmw m4&wm m$zx m1 EwH$u xmwmrmww www$m$ammmw11 Eu1u %mww%wm2 mE$mm $m%HmFmwmmmxmmw$1 %$m wmEm%HMC4H$E91 Hmmw$ m m H 3am,m,mmgr DIVISEON BENCH: - HON’BLE SHRI FAKHRUDDIN, Ag.C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAF: SINHA, J. 11I03l2005: - Shri Y.K.' Munshi, Sr. Adm, petitioners. ‘4 Shri Prashant Mishra, AddL Advocate General, with Shri N.K. pondents. Agrawai, Dy. A.G., for the State/res Heard. This case has been recei» Madhya Pradesh. for the State very fairly stated thatthis Learned counsel appearing "der dated 07/02/2003 passed by the of Madhya Pradesh in bunch of cases 1999and the connected matters. This 2003 m MPJR '— SN 62_{WP. No. rete Industries Vs. State of WIRE The points raised in this F raised in aforesaid writ petitions Division Bench of the High Court whiie deciding the aforesaid w observed‘as under: matter is squareiy covered by o I Division Bench of the High Court bearing WritPetition No.4854 of matter has aiso been reported ir .4854 of 1 999 —— M!s.l\/ikas.Conc with Shri B.P. Sharma counsel for the ed on transfer from the High Court of retition are similar to that of the points and the same have been decided by 3f Madhya Pradesh. lt is submitted that rit petitions, the Division Bench has Media?) ~‘ <‘Jl ;. WM XI—HC-22 WW,®?1‘1W,W mm W9 QB! $99G 3€ mm in zoo m 31mm! mw r éamm (a) ‘ "There is a difference between the two concepts, nameiy, stamp duty and rate of dufy; (b) The State Legislature has the competence. to provide t e rates of stamp duty as per Entry 63 rea with Entry 44 of List-m of the Seventh Sch duie of the Constitution; (C) There is n discrimination because a document rei ting to immovable property is liable to extr stamp duty under Section 75 of the 1993 ct because it is situated within the block wh reas a similar property is not liable to exc ss duty soteiy on the ground it - is situated wi hin the Municipal area; (d) Section 75 o the 1993 Act is intra vires and the proviso o Section 75 is to be given retrospective effect from the date when Section 75 c me into force Le. 25/01/1 994; and (e) The retroact ity would have limited effect so that the ersons Who have not paid the stamp duty ould be liable to pay under the proviso but the persons who have paid under the ain provision would not be entitled to re nd.” medias) XI-HC-22 m we’Qb g%Q)% ax 200 W mmw “3 ~ WM§WWK ann’ratmam Learned counsei appearing ‘gor the petifioner does not dispute this {egal position. m View of the submissions niade by the counsel appearing for the Lg parties and, particuiariy the fact that this matter is squarely severed by the decision of the Divisicn Bench (if High Court 0f Madhya Pradesh, this i ; petitien stands finaiiy disposed of w th the observations quoted above. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays-for refund of security deposit. The security amount, if amt deposited, be refunded. There shall i be no order aito oosts. W' \Q Sdl- §dl= i §un§ii Katmai? §inhe “3135 V: Acting . k Chief :::/7VIA Justice J ‘ i r ;1» Le \ 9x " z I, i Jddge (dioW)