(9 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No: ^3&^ /of 1999 PETITIONERS 2. SIMPLEX CASTINGS LIMITED, a Public Limited Company duly registered under the relevant provisions ofthe Companies Act, 1956 having its its registered office at 89 Bajaj Bhawan, Nariman Point Mumbai and units at 5, Industrial Estate, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (M.P) and Urla Industrial Estate, Raipur(M.R) Shri. H.B.SHAH sonofLateShri. B.M.SHAH, agedabout66years, Indian Citizen, shareholderand DirectorofSimplex Castings Limited, residerit of Simplex Colony, Malviya Nagar, District Durg, M.P. Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of Madhya Pradesh Through the Collector, Durg, (M.P.) ~ 2. The Inspector General of Registration and Super- intendent of stamp, Government of Madhya Pradesh,Gwalior((M.P) 3. The District Registrar and Collector of Stamps, Durg (M.P) 4. State Bank of India, a body Corporate having com- mon seal and perpetual succession, having Indus- trial and Finance Branch, S-1, Bhilai, District Durg (M.P). PETITIONUNDERARTICLE 226/227 OFTHECONSTITUTION OF SNDiA The humble petion ofthe Petitioners above-named MOST RESPECTFULLY —-2 f^-E!! ;!t-t^"--.^i".'^^:' •K^W^'^^'^ii^^^^^^^j^^M •^•y-^^. ^^Cf^--^-^^£M'^-'-^-?'::-'J1^}:^-./^^^ XI-HC-22 311^?TEBT - f?;TR;3TT^T Stl'iW yfgfl js? ^ll*lld<), (?Tn*f'ie, Riwwy 3T1^?I *<IIMI snii«n :p. 0307/7^ Wt 2W- ail^S!! ^WIWdfer K. Munshi, Sr. Ad /iisnra, ,| Agrawai, Dy. A.G., for the Stat< Hearci. ^/re iviaaw 'tearned counsel appeari! matter is squarely covered by[ Diylsion Bench of the High Coi beariiig-Writ Petition No.4854 matter has also been reported iifl .CT199S- M/s. Vlkas Concrstd Ths points raised in thii raised in aforesaid writ petitioi] Division Bench ofthe High'Cour| white^ deciding the aforesi iHei'vea +i''<t^'lfl-i tii^irfTffrs'<3 <Rit&i< ^Slf^TSII^T / wl C'lShri B.P. Sharma counsel for the Generai, with Shri N.K. This case has been rec^ived on transfer from the High Court of ig for the State ven/ fairly stated that this order dated 07/02/2003 passed by the It-t of Msdhya Pradesh in bunch of cases df 1999 and the connecied mattors. This 2QG31Jl|ARJR_^.[62jWB- _4SM 'ies ints petition are simiiar. to that of the p( is and the same have been decidec of Madhya Pradesh. it is submitted writ Detitions, the Division Bench ha; (cft^^fgir) 1 -' L 1 .ITii liij XI-HC-; an^irw 'SlT^ff s»i>i ylsd S|!l» ?s? ^rprRpr, ^iflwid, facrofy M:.{.:.^.^.U^ cfii.iifa^H vntf^f 1s fei^t rfSreerc ^;2f[^T3:tlSsr ^^^ l?i'^?'tf §S? (b)The State ie the ra read Vi'ith En' has the competence jes of starnp duty as per Entp/ h? 44 of List-ii! of the reiatsni ise it is 9 f-imii.sr (d) Section 75 of so to iiec! force i.e. 25/01: (e)The retroactivil the persons •»»: would be 'iiabH wouid not be e Leamed counsej app^ '^ieaai pos'tion. ^rence bstween tfae t\vo concepts, tJuty and rate of duty; scrimination because a document ider Section 75 of the 1993 Act ituated within the block whereas a ' is not iiabie to excess duty sotelv it is situated within the Municipai w 1993 Act is intra vires and ths .fd^t y&.< date when Section 75 eame i ho have not to pay under ave paid Simlted effect so that paid the stamp duty ihe proviso but the aring for the petitioner does not dispute (ift^^^) ®?a ili cv- I ^ I. -s-::h^E^~'f-^'"t"":".\ T^ ~:sr^} 4i*| .<|Ti|]ciq, ^ ^^.:..^.7/^ 3(1^1 <WIWfff^(T -s- parties ancl, partioulany the the decision of the Division petition stands finatly dispose< nnsit [ons made by the counsel appeai-ing for the he 1|act that this matter is squareiy covered by The security amount, be noi ordsr as to costs. ^^T^4'iTi w^Tf ^'te^f <Ri^i< ^lSlRFT 311^1 of wit •ve. he petitioners prays for refund of security :f any, deposited, be refunded. There shall Sd/- Acting Chief Justice SdA Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge (<ft^slQ<l) ^-^lfell0)