NWTHé”HiéH COURTTQF MA§RVA PRADESH AT JABALPUR NRIT PETITI N N J2MsaF 19?& /f\ ETlTiDN UNDER ARTICLES EEéIEE? BF THE CUNSTlTUTl N DF xNnxg Thé humble petition a? the petitiuners abuvenamed MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEHETH é ’ X : YN THE HATTER BF: PETiTlONERS 1 . HIS KEVBTQNE INDUSTR 1E3 LKHITEB, a campany duly incorpurated under the Indian Companies Qc%, 1956, having it5 regigtered nffice at Mahim Bamhay and a factoryfplant at 15—26 Industrial Estate, Nandni Raad, Bhilai — 4?OQ2b, Distt. urg M.F. VINDD B. SHAH, aged 5D years,snn Hf lata B.D.T.5hah Indian Citizen, Share~ haldev and Directur of the PetitionerV Na‘ 1, resident a? Qmbe Niwaa, E417, Nehru Nagar (East) , Bhilai , Distritt Burg N.P. VERSUS RESPUNDENTS 1 . THE STATE EF HAEHYA PRADESH : thvuugh the £911ettar, Ra i pu r N . P . E. THE. INSPECTDR GENERQL BF REGISTRATIUN , AND SUPERINTENDENT DF STAMPS, Guvernment v of ~Nadhya Pradesh, Gwaliar N.P. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRRR ané Callector of Bggggg, Durg‘MP 4. QNDHR BANK, Civic €entre ,Branch, Bhilai, Distt. Durg 5H.P. XI-HC—22 HW,WI§,W mm mm‘mf.‘ 2/ N HE m ...W ' XI-HC—22 HW,WW,W Wm f mmmaff%fi?f§§ (a) “There is a difference between the two concepts, namely, stamp duty d rate of duty; (b) The State Legislat re has the Competence tc provide the rates: of stamp duty asrper Entry 63 read with Entry of List—ll! of the Seventh Schedule of the Con titution; (c) There is no discrim nation because a document relating to immovabe property is liable to extra stamp duty under ction 75 of the 1993 Act because it is situate within the block whereas a similar property is n t liable to excess duty solely tuated within the Municipal on the ground it is area; (d) Section 75 of the 1 93 Act is intra viresand the is to be given retrospective 7 proviso to Section effect from the date when Section 75 came into force i.e. 25/01/1994 and (e) The retroactivity wo ld have limited effect so that the persons who h ve not paid the stamp duty ‘ would be liable to p y under the proviso but the \persons would not who be entitled have aid to refund.“ 'under the main provision (@W) n 4 e i XI—HC—22 HW,M,W 3mm ‘ wrf /3C{f/q§ m. W Learned counse! appearing} f0f the petitioner does not dispute this legal position. in View of the submissions made by the counsei appearing for the parties and, particularly the fact that this matter is squarely covered“by of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, this ith the observations quoted above. Learned counsel for the etitioners prays for refund of security deposit. The security amount, if a be no order as to costs. kl J the decision of the Division Benc petition stands finally disposed of , deposited, be refunded. There shall n ' ,,l Sdl- Acting Chief Jusu'ce n sw- ‘Sunil Kumar Sinha t Judge l ,W ,jra¥ (@W) h l