j— Tn-VinTrlurmiTiiiiijB, •? .r ^:;.,.^^,. ^^^WS^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Division Bench) Coraai: Hon'ble ShriJagdish BhaUa, Ag.C.J. & HonTite Shri Satish VL Agaihotri^ J, Writ Petition No. 4179 of 2003 Petitioner Shri Harc Krishiia Sponge iron IVt. Ltd. a corapany duty iacor^iuted under tfae relevant provisions of fhe Companies Act, 1956 having ite Factoiy at Siltara^ Kaipur. Versus RespoHdeats 1, The State of Chhattisgarh thiough thc Collcctor, Raipur. 2, The Inspector General of Registcatioa and Supermtendeiit of Stamps, Oovt, of Cfaattj^garh, Presentfy Workiug at Gwalior. 3. Tfae District Registrar and CbllectorofStamps, Raipur 4. Andhra Baxik, a body Corporate haviog commoa seal aad Perpetual Suc/cession Jhavmg iater atia aaiongst olher b3^aciche&, a braach at Fafedih Chowk, Raipzu'. WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 226 AND 227 OP THB CON8TITUTION OP INDIA Shri Malay Kuoiar Bhaduri, Advocate for fhe petitioners, Shri N. K. Agarwal, Deputy Advocate General for the respondente No. l to 3. Shri B. P, Sharma, Advocate for fhe rcspondent No»4. , ORAL ORDER (Passe^l on tliis 4th d^ay ofnecember^ 2007) The foHowing oral order offhe Court is passed by Hoa*ble Shri Jagdish BhaBa, Acttag C.J. ^^:^^^^^^"~ Leanied counsel appearmg for fhe pardes agree fhat fhis case is covered by fhe judgment and order dated 11.3.2005 passed by this Court in W.P.No. 4276/96 (Murarilal Agrawal & anofher Vs. The State of M.P. & ofh.ers). Accordingly fhis petition stands disposed of witihi the same terms and conditions, whfch are as folbws:- (a) There is a difference belween the two concepts, Bamefy, stanip duty and rate ofduty; (b) The State Legislature has the cosiipetence to provide fhe rates of stamp duty as per Eutiy 63 read wifh Eatry 44 of List-III offhe Seveiith Schedule offhe Coastitutioxi; (c) There is no discriiHinatioii because a document relating to immovable pioperty is liable to extra stamp duly under SectioH 75 of fhe 1993 Act because it is situated withia fhe block whercas a sistular property is not liable to exc^ss duly sotely cn. fhe ground it is sitaated within the Mumcipal area; (d) Section 75 of fhe 1993 Act is mtra vircs and fhe proviso to Section 75 is to be giveH rctrospective effect from the date whea Section 75 came mto force ie. 25/01/1994; and (e) The retroactivily-would have lisiiited eflfect so that the persons who have iiot paid the staxap duty would be liabte to pay under the proviso but fhe persoas who have paM under fhe main provision would aotbe entifled to refdnd^ Certified copy, as per Riiles. Thakur Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge