'HE HIGH COURT_OF HADHYfi PRfiDESH flT JfiBftLPUR UR IT PETITION NO]°</-^)F -199A IN THE MATTER Ot^>'* PETITIONERS 1. .x'r- e. M/S MftNISH PIPES PRIV^^/' LIMITED^ a compgny ^d^y incorporated under \/Wie Indian Companies fict,/^', f^56, having its reg^ist^red o-!'fii:e at Delhi Vsrid a factory/plant at B-13 Rawatbhata Industrial Area Raipur (M.p.). JftGDISH PRfiSfiD JHftUftR aged 37 years, son of D.C. Jhawar, Indian Citizen, Share— holder and Director at the Petitioner No. 1, resident tsf C/o Maneesh Pipes Pvt. Ltd., B-13, Rawabhata Indus- trial ftrea, Raipur M.P. ^' VERSUS RESPONDENTS THE STATE OF through the Raipur M.P. Collector, sf 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION fiND SUPERINTENDENT OF STAHPS, Government of' Madhya Prsdesh, Gwalior M.P. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRftR and Collector ot Stamps, Raipur M.P. 4» Sts.te B^nk o^ Indi^y a body corporate haviTig common seal and perpetual succession having branchss at 'Industrial Area Urla, ,/' Fafadih, Raipur, H.p. PETITION UNDER ARTIC1.ES 226/237 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIfi »••' XI-HC-22 a.lT^r^r fS:TR;3T)^r sb*<i*tfRd '.. 3^ "i|l<lliv)<l, »T(1«'I<S,Rjcl|yy< 3ii^i <4ach HltRtlshtllch "'""""""""""""""" g^ •200- "7^ ~\ ^') Rre^ 311^1 8'tOIWCTf^cT HON'BLE SHRI FAKHRUDDI i/2005: - Shri Y.K. Munshi, Sr. Ajjv., with Shri B.P. Sharma counsel for the Addl. Advocate General, with Shri N.K. Shri Prashant Mishra, Agrawat, Dy. A.G., forthe State| Heard. This case has been rei| Madhya Pradesh. Learned counse! appea| m.atter is squarely covered bj Division Bench of the High C4 bearing Writ Petition No.4854[ matter has a!so been reportej .4854 of 1999 - M/s. Vikas The points raised in th| raised in aforesaid writ petjti(|ins Division Bench of the High Co|i whiie deciding the aforesai^ Sipbsen/ed as under: wifcpft^ wRft'tr'te^t d^RTC ^sri^iTa.n^T eived on transfer from the High Court of •Ing for the State very fairly stated that thls order dated 07/02/2003 passed by the urt of Madhya Pradesh in bunch of cases of 1999 and the connected matters. This in 2003 (1) MPJR - SN 62 W.P, No. Industries Vs,State_9fM,P.} C<t>ncrete s petition are simiiar to that of the points and the same have been decided by irt of Madhya Pradesh. !t is submitted that writ petitions, thg Division Bench has (^^M) ^ XI-HC-22 sn^rqiT I^IRian^T stixwulea l': *IIHWI sn*ii<»> 3^' "i(l<ll<t<<, E9Tn<1'16, fclcfiyy 3i 1^1 ^vt«h __^:f:./.z-^/^^ Hq; 200- Rl'b^ (a) "There is a diff^ namely, stamp (b)The State Leg|; provide the rat^s read with Enti1/ Scheduleofthe (c) There is no di; relating to immt)vab stamp duty unfler because it is si) similar propertyl on the ground Sectibn i) Section 75 of f proviso to effect from the forcei.e.25/01/ (e) The retroactiviy the persons wtto wouid be liablel persons who h^ve woutd not be enl <tii<ifci<fl-i KiiinTft'te'<fl <Rf%|< ^STf^iTan^T [rence between the two concepts, lutyand rateofduty; |siature has the competence to |s of stamp duty as per Entry 63 44 of List-SSI of the Seventh ponstitution; crimination because a document !e property is liable to extra :uated wjthin the block whereas a is not iiable to excess duty soieiy Is sjtuated within the IVlunicipal is 1993 Act is intra vires and the 75 Is to be given retrospective date when Section 75 came into 994;and wouid have limited effect so that have not paid the stamp duty to pay under the proviso but the paid under the main provision it!ed to refund." XI-HC-22 sn^r^r fewsn^T *^i+yRd telte ^ls^^^t^-i1- •<. ; s'ft'-''~!-s~"--~~^6'-tpiv'! ^y^ 3^ '^mw^, WTS\W\Q, fsidi'y^ aii^i<<Dcti ^^^.t:.f2-^:3'L^IL V^ 2W. (96 *<iwir»i*iich 3liq<l S+fllW^f^T -J Learned counsei appe4 In view of the parties and, particularh/ the the decision of the Division B4 petition stands finaily dispose<( The security amount, I be no order as to costs. qirafepft^ wi?ifffIWI-rfSTRK ^srf^-q-sn^r ring for the petitioner does not dispute this submissifins made by the counsei appearing for the ftct that this matter is squareiy covered by |nch of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, this ofwith theobservations quoted above. Learned counsel for tfie petitioners prays for refund of securifry any, deposited, be refuhded. There shail Sd/- Suni] KumarSinha Judge Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge ,y ^.! -<