mGH EGUR? <3F CHH%?E3§§&3§L§§A§EQ& Wxit Pgtition No. 13$? cf 2&61 Petmoner ‘U gharat Endustr:al Wcrks {Bhiiab Privaie Limited, a Cempany incorperated under Cés,’ Act 1956, having Es RegdSffice at 51 industriaE Estate, Naadini Road, Bhé§ai — 49E} Q26; Diet. Qurg {CG}. Versug \ §esponaants 4,) iaie of Chhawsgarh, fhraug’n Coifector. Dung. 2} The §r18pector Genera! of Registratéon & Superintendent or” Stamm, Governmgnt Gf Chhatts’sgarh, Raépur {CG}. 3) District Regisvar & Conecmr of Stamps, Surg ma) \w w . CO Bank a body Cerporate having cemmmn sea§ and perpetuaé successicn, having mdustrial and Finance Branch, Sectorl-t Bhikai, {listt Burg {C(3). {Writ Pemien under Amme 2251227 of me Cansiitution of mafia) $E: Hon’ble Mr. $a€isn K. I§gnihofra J. Pie$grgL None appeaxs fer {he pet‘tioner, Shz'é Vivek Shawna, Pane! Lawyer forthe respandent$ Na. 1 t0 318taie. Shri PR. Patankar, counsei farthe rgspomdent No.4. GWAL $R§ER iPaswd an ”mm Decembea’y 2%?) Learned counsei appearing fcw thE re$pcnc£ents No‘ ‘3, 2 and EiState as wee: as the respendent No.4 jointEy submii that me facts and questinn of {aw §nvmved in ‘t'nis petition is covered by the judgment and arder dated 11—3-2605 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4276;96 (Murariiai Agrawai & anaiher Ve. The Staie of MP. & Others). 2) i have gone through the pieadings and dasumenis appended theretc and i have heard ieamea‘ counsei appearing far me respondents aisc. i am of the considerec: opinion that thie case is squareiy covered by i‘ne judgment and arder dated ii~3—2GD5 passed by this Cdurt in Wri: Petition N0. 4275i96 {Muraraiiai Agrawai‘s caee (supra) . 3‘; Acccrdingiv, the petition stands déspcsed of with the same terms and wndmons, which are as foiiows: Certified com], h accordance with Ruies. Sdl otri / Satis“ K' Agn‘h Judgf 5a) There is a difference between the {we concepts: nameiy stamp aiuiv and rate cf duty; {b} The Siate Legisiaiure has the cempetence is pmv§de the rates of stamp duty a3 per Ehtry 63 read with Enirv 44 cf List -H§ 0f ”the $evehth 8ehedme of the Corm‘étution; {c} There ie no discriminatmh because a document re§atihg to émmevabie pmpes’tv £3 Mame to extra stamp du‘w under Sectécn 75 o? th ?§§3 Act. because ii is snuated Within the bieck whereas a s§mi§ar mepem is no‘z liable ta excess eutv soieév on the gmund it is situated Within the Municipal area; {d} Sectiun 1’5 cf the 1993 Act is intra vires and the previsa tc Section 75 is to be given retrospective effect from the date when Section 75 came intc force i.e.. 25-1-199ii; and (e) The retroactivitv wouio' have iimited effect so that the eeisons who have not paid the stamp duty wouici be iiabie to pay under the ptoviso but the persons who have paid under the main provision wouid not be entitied to refund