APL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the circular letter dated 31. 5. 1995 (Annexure P/1) addressed by the respondent no. 2 to all the district Registrars, Collector of Stamps and Sub Registrars in the State of Madhya Pradesh and also being aggrieved by the letter dated 24. 3. 2000 addressed by respondent no. 4 State Bank of Indore to the petitioner (Annexure P/2) is before this Court with a submission that provisions contained in Section 75 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj awam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (Panchayat Raj Act for short) are ultra vires the Constitution, the respondent no. 2 i. e. Inspector General of registration and Superintendent of Stamp had no authority to issue the circular letter no. 1964 dated 31. 5. 1995 (Annexure P/1) to other authorities to recover 1% duty in addition to stamp duty nor the respondent/bank had any authority under the law to deduct a sum of rs. 6,97,000/-from petitioners C. D. account towards cost of Panchayat duty on mortgage created in favour of the bank without issuing any notice to the petitioner or without affording any opportunity of hearing and without looking into the notification of the State Government issued on 29. 12. 1990 which was fixing a cap of Rs. 50,000/ -.

(2.) IT is conceded before us that challenge to the vires of Section 75 amended so also un-amended of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam has been rejected by this Court in the matter of M/s. Vikas Concrete Industries vs. State of M. P. 2003 (1) MPJR SN 62 (W. P. No. 4854 of 1999 (Jabalpur) decided on 7. 2. 2003 ). In view of the said judgment Shri shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel fairly concedes that question of the vires does not survive for consideration as the matter is no more res integra. Submission of Shri Shrivasvata however is that once the State government exercising its powers under Section 9 (1) (a) of the Indian stamp Act, 1899, reduced, remitted or compounded the stamp duty then such duty as reduced by the State Government shall only be levied. According to him the notification dated 29. 12. 1990 clearly provides that equitable mortgage by surrender of title deeds if is beyond the value of rs. 50,00,000/-then the maximum stamp duty payable would be rs. 50,000/ -. He also submits that Section 75 though at one side provides that the duty imposed under the Indian Stamp Act shall stand increased by 1% on the value of such property or in the case of mortgage on the amount secured by the instrument but the first proviso clearly provides that such extra stamp duty levied in respect of mortgage shall not exceed the amount of stamp duty thereupon. According to him if the stamp duty cap is fixed at Rs. 50,000/- then the extra stamp duty to be recovered under Section 75 of Panchayat Raj Act could not be more than rs. 50,000/ -.

(3.) SHRI Samdarshi Tiwari, learned counsel for the State conceded to the legal position and submitted that if the stamp duty stands reduced to rs. 50,000/- then the additional stamp duty to be levied would not exceed the amount of the stamp duty which in this case would be Rs. 50,000/only.