. -,- I _ . ‘ a‘ The humble petition nf the petitiane§$ _ ‘ . ,‘ ’1 kk llabyvenamed ISHkwgT : j M £NifHE MATTER uF = ‘ ¢ETITIDNERS$ t 1. \ MURARILAL AGRAHAL. Son of late Ram Swarnopdas agrawal. § i aged b4 years, :arryig',o ‘ g p é 1 prnprietory-business of Rice Nilling in thel hame_ and i ‘ % style of HIS Tirupatti Rice Mill at Sectur 11, zone x1; % S ap Na. 15, Bhilai; ’ i g /nistt‘nurg M.P. ‘ § ,2. PURUSHDTTAM AGRANAL, SUN UF' M.LiAgrawa1, ’ carrying oh § i E § ,' pr¢prietory business in thé E . name‘gahd-style uf M/S Jay V §V i 3 _Baha Prnpesgurs,,atr\8ectdf' i I § E' ’ ' 11$ ZaneV11,_8hop ’No.‘ 15; §_i . ‘, ‘ Bhilai Distt. Durg’H.P. ’3 N (Ix _ V \g i , g ; ‘ ‘ VERSUS k.‘ RESFDNDENTS ‘ 5 ? ‘ \ 1. , _ THE STATE DF MADHYQ PRRDEEH§ thrQugh the ' CallectbrL Burg, M.P. , 1“ , K\ 2. THE 1N3PECTQR GENERAL ‘DF ‘ REGISTRQTIDN AND'X SUPERINTENDENT ‘UF STAMP3, Government cf V' Ma§hia Pradesh, Gwalior M.P. //<’i ‘4.3. THE nISTRICT REGiSTRaR, nuRG gr ‘“ - M.P[ I / v”, a? 4. THE‘ BANK nF INDIA,‘ Builéi g; ' Branch, Ciivic ‘ Centrg, ‘Bhilai, Distt. Durg, M.P;_; V. §K>;.g.'..§.a.a§./g6 M I ....... ’......................... mun...un..w.uf .......... mmmi' WWWW§WW éamm DlVlSION BENCH: - HON’BLE SHRI FAKHRUDDIN, Ag.C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA: J. 11l03/2005: - Shri Y.K. Munshi‘, Sr. Aw” With Shri BP Shérma counsel for the Shri Prashant Mishta, Adcll."Advocate General, with Shri N.K. Agrawal. Dy. A.G., for the State/res Jondents. Heard. This ¢ase has been received on transfer from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. ‘ ' Learned counsel appearin/g for the State very fairly stated that thie matter is squarely covered by order dated 07/02/2003 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in bunch of cases bearing Writ Petition No.4854 of 1999 and the connected matters, This . matter has aiso been reported in 2003 m MPJR - SN 62 {W.P. No. .4854 of 1999 ~ Mls. Vikas Cencnete industries Vs. State of M.P.t The points raised in this petition are similar‘to that of the points raised .in aforesaid writ petitions and the same'have been decided by “ Division Benc‘h‘orthe High court or Madhya Pradesh. it is submitted‘that r while deciding the aforesaid writ petitions. the Division Bench has pbserved as under: \ petitioners. \\ /., (were) r W r L m W w W‘4 HW,W,W Wmax£gk§§éxg§¢m ...‘ m ............... XI HC 22 mamax'w _ L, Wmgwm (a) “There is a difference between the two concepts, namely, stamp duty ar d rate of duty; (b) The State Legislatur- has the competence to provide the rates of stamp duty as per Entry 63 read with Entry 44 ofv List-HI of the Seventh Schedule of the Const‘tution; (c) There is no discn’mir ation because a document ' relating to immovable property is liable toextra stamp duty under Séction 75 of the 1993 Act “because it is situated within the block whereas a similar property is n liable to excess duty solely on the ground it is stuated withii the Municipal area; (cl) Section 75 of the 1:3 proviso to Section 75 is to be given retrospective ‘ effect from the date hen Section 75 came into ' force Le. 25/01/1994; ’nd ’ (e) The retroactivity wou have limited‘effect so‘that the persons who ha e (not paid the stamp duty under the proviso but the u Act is intra vires and the 3 would be liable to p persons who have p id under the main provision / \\\ would not be entitled ~ refund (depot) o l XLHc—zz w HW,W,W Wm mqalE‘ila; w‘Kz.égéK? 20a~ m