( 1 ) ). In this group of matters, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 6/04/1992 issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers under clause (a) of Sec. 9 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Stamp Act") superseding previous Government orders including an order dated 28/03/1987 issued under Sec. 9 (a), and providing for remission or reduction, with effect from 1/04/1992, of the duty payable on the instrument of mortgage deed, as defined in clause (p) of Sec. 2 of the Stamp Act, executed by any person on behalf of any industrial undertaking in favour of any of the Financial Institutions specified in Annexure i and also executed by or on behalf of any of the said Financial institutions, for securing repayment of loan advanced or to be advanced to such industrial undertaking.

( 2 ) ). Questions involved in these petitions are : (i) from which date the order dated 28/03/1987 stands cancelled or superseded ? and (ii) whether the order dated 6/04/1992 published in the Official Gazette on 2/07/1992 could have retrospective effect from 1/04/1992 ?

( 3 ) ). Admittedly, the order dated 6/04/1992 (Annexure "a") is published in the Official Gazette on 2/07/1992. The effect of the aforesaid order is that it supersedes the previous order dated 28/03/1987 (Annexure "b") which is published in Gujarat Government Gazette Part IV-A dated 30th april, 1987. By the order dated 28/03/1987 the Government of Gujarat had reduced with effect on and from 1/04/1987 the duty payable on the instrument of mortgage deed as defined in clause (p) of Sec. 2 of the stamp Act executed by any person on behalf of any industrial undertaking in favour of any of the Financial Institution specified in Annexure "i" to the said order.

( 4 ) ). In Special Civil Application No. 2899 of 1992 the instrument of mortgage is executed on 7/04/1992, in Special Civil Application No. 2964 of 1992 the instrument is executed on 1/04/1992, in Special civil Application No. 3266 of 1992 the mortgage deed is executed on 1/04/1992, in Special Civil Application No. 3315 of 1992 the instrument are executed by petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 6/04/1992, 1st April, 1992 and 3rd 3/04/1992 respectively, in Special Civil Application No. 3316 of 1992 the instrument is executed on 7/04/1992, in Special civil Application No. 3735 of 1992 the instrument is executed on 3/04/1992 and in Special Civil Application No. 4090 of 1992 instrument is executed on 1/04/1992. It is the contention of the petitioners that, even though the mortgage instrument are executed prior to 2/07/1992, yet the petitioners are directed by the respondents to pay stamp duty on those instruments on the basis of the order dated 6/04/1992 which is published in the Official Gazette on 2/07/1992. It is their contention that the demand is illegal and the order dated 6/04/1992 cannot be given any retrospective effect from 1/04/1992.

( 5 ) ). At the time of hearing of these matters, Mr. S. N. Soparkar, learned advocate for the petitioners, has raised the following contentions : (1) In view of the order dated 28/03/1987, the petitioners were required to pay stamp duty on the mortgage deed as prescribed therein till the order is rescinded or superseded as provided under Sec. 9 of the Stamp Act. Section 9 specifically provides that the State government can reduce or remit, prospectively or retrospectively, stamp duty on any instrument by publishing an order to that effect in the Official Gazette. Therefore, the said order can only be rescinded or superseded by its publication in the Official Gazette. (2) Power to give concession retrospectively does not and cannot include the power to withdraw the same retrospectively and, therefore, the impugned order insofar as it seeks to withdraw the concession prior to its publication is invalid. He submitted that if it is held that the order dated 6/04/1992 is having retrospective effect then it would lead to absurd results, because - (a) stamp duty