Writ Petition Noxg‘fl’g5 of 1999 PETITIONERSI l . BSBK LIMITED, a company duly incorporated under tife relevant provisions of the Companies Act‘, 1936, having its registered office i at Nandani Road, Bhilai (M.P.) Shri Vijay' Kumar, x son of late Shri Balkishan, about 45 years, aged Indian Citizenf share holder and Director of _BSBK Limited, resident of 53, Motilal Nehru ‘Nagar, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (M.P.) REsPoNDENTs The State of Madhya Pradesh Through the Collector, The Inspector General of Registration and Superintendent of stamps,Government of Maahya Pradesh, Gwalior (M.P.) The VDistrict Registrar and Collector of of stamps, Durg (M.P.) State Bank of India, Durg, M.P. a body corporate having common seal and perpetual succession, having Industrial Finance Branch, Durg (M.P.) and ‘S-l, Bhilai, District P_etition under Articles 226/227 of the'Constitution’of~India. ;}SHEWETH The humble petition of. the Petitioners above-‘named MOST RESPECTFULLY M Contd...2' . XI—HC—22 vmW§$N EQW‘ - HDN ELE W FWWN, woo. & HQNBLE m mi, WAR $h§vi£g J. ‘H/(i3!2€§€i§z - vé None for tha petitioner t petitioner on UQKO2!2E305. Thio cafse has heen rec ‘ Madhyg Pradash. whileaclociding the aforasaid ‘ absewed a$ under: hough fixed oate $PC wao isouod to the Shri Praghant mishra, Aliidi. advooate @enerai, wiih 8hri MK. frespondenis. Agrawal, iia‘y. AG for tho State Heard. Loamed counseE appear: matter io squareiy covered by Division Bench of the High COL bearirig Writ Petiiion No.4854 r matter has also berm raported ii of 13% —- Mis M'ikas; Cor-mesa petition are similar to that of the pointo The pairits raised in this raised in aforesaid writ petitims and the sama have been daclded by Division Bench of the High Court of llrladhya Pradwh. it is whmittecl that writ petitions, tho Division Bench has aived on transfer from the High Court of 1g for the Etate very fairly stated that thio order dated UWG2I2003 paoaed by the rt of Madhya Pradeoh inbunch of cases if 19% and the connected mati‘ers. This 1 2(m3 m [WT-MR - SN 62 jwP. No. 4354 induéstries Vs. $rate or MR} (%W) XI—HC-22 mam mm ‘ ‘- Wmmm ‘_ 7 _ mmffww mw L %3i%tr3n%$ (a) “Thera §$ a differenca betwean the two wncepm, namely, stamp dLLy and rate of duty; (b)The Hate Legi tature has the competence to prcjvide the rate of stamp duty a5 per Entry E3 reat§ with Entry 4-4 of Li5t—IH 0f the Sevemh Sclmdule 6f the unstEtutian; (c}There is no dis- rimihatiun because a document relating to immo able property is liable to extra stamp duty und r Section ?5 of the 1&9?) Act because it is sit ated Within the binck whereas a nimiiar property net liabte to excess duty snlely on the ground it is situated within the Municipai artaa; {d} Sectinn 75 of t tarot/Em ta Sem e’h‘ect from the ate-When Section 75 came into farce Le. 25mm 94; and {e)The ratrnactivity woutd have limited effect-30 that the persons wh have na't paid the $tamp duty wauid he tiahie o pay under the proviao butthe persons who. ha e paid under the main provision wnutd not be enti ted to refund.” 1383 Act is intra Vit‘hs and ttw ?5 is tn be given retmspective in View of the submiesi ns made by the counsel appearing for the ‘ $tate and, panicutariy the fact hat this matter is squarely covered hythe (Q‘idW) i h i XI-HC—22 Wan WWW WW§WW %31@tr3n%31 decision of ihe Division Bench petition stancfa“ finally wwased m The seturity amount, if a ny, ‘dewSited, be refunded. There shall be no order as to ccsta. * Sd/— Acting Chief Justice of High Caurt of Madhya Prade5h, ihis 'with the- obwwatians quoted abmve” x guizg ’ 0%W) ,g Sd/a §nm§3 Kumar Smka ’~~ Jaadgg \