fr [i\^ ^mwwsr^ 7^r ^i^Kn^, ^Tii^^i<$, r®icii^^< , (^.P. AJO. 2-S- 'Wt 2003 -^i^i Tra%1 (yii^^) 3ii^r-^rf^te WT^^TW-ri^' ^KilW^ft^ W^T MIUiM UUUKI Ul" ^MMARTTI^S^ Coram: Ho?i^teShnDhji|endraMish Hon'Me Shrs R.N WWJfETmQH HO,.^S49sf2WQ PETITIONERS M/s B| partnersfl Reievan< Act,193^ Constnjd 2. Ram^sh B. 38 Construd yeafs; RESPONDENTS 1. 2. Versus State Secretar Singh Bi The Insi Superinfc Chhatti^ The Di! Stamps, Presei^t Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Addi. State/respondents. ^Rfe?^^^^^ ^ ft^ tM^J< ^^tRlH^T^ ^RM AT BILASrUR Chasidrakar, JJ. Ramanaiah Constructions, A 1.ip Firm du'y Regsstered under the Provisions of Indian Partnership carrying on the business of tion at Bemetara, District Durg. sh, Son of Shri B. Ramanaiah, aged Partners of B. Ramanaiah tions, Bemetara, Durg. 3f Chhattisgarh, Through The ,', M.'nistry of Finance, Dau Kaiyan tawan, Raipur, Cl'ihattisgam. )ector General of Reaistration ard andent of Stamps, Govt. of prh, Raipur. rtrict Registrar and^rCollector Raipur. of 4. Andhra |Bank, A Body Corporate having Commort Seal and Perpetua! SucoessiQn Having ititer-aiia amongst other Branches A Branch Cpffice at Fafadih Chowk, Raipur (Writ Petition Under Articles 226 afrid 227 ofthe Constitution of India) coi^nsel for the petitioners. Advocate Generai for the .—FS/95—1 1 /2008—1,00,000. u 'WRWW<1§^ 's^ ^ww^, ^-^\ww, [®i<ni^^< ^•^ ^a.. >^Lf^. "^2003 s?i^^?r'^N' <^1 W^l ^>^i<^ ^¥T^^^ (^i^^) ^mw^T '^Fit?!^' ^R^0 ^ fe^> .^'^^'a???^! QralOk-der (Passedonlh-05-2009) PerHQn'bleDhirendraMishra^ Learned counsel appearing fpr the parties agree that thls case is covered by the judgment and oijder dated 11-03-2005 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4276|/96 (Murarilal Agrawal & another Vs. The State of M.P. & others). disposed of wjth the same terms anft conditions, which are as follows: There is a differen^e between the two concepts, (a) (b) namely, stamp duty arl The State Legislatur^ the rates of stamp du^ Accordingly, this petition stands |d rate of duty; has the competence to provide }/ as per Entry 63 read with Entry (c) 44 of List-111 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. There is no discrimina|tion because a document relating to immovable proper1|y is liable to extra stemp duty under Section 75 of tH within the block wherd to excess duty solely the Munidpal area: (d) Section75ofthe199^ toSection 75istobe^ date when Section 751 e 1993 Act because it is situated as a similar property is not liable ?n the ground it is situated within Act is intra vires and the proviso jven retrospective effect from the came into force i.e. 25-01-1994; and (e) The retroactivity woulti have limited effect so that the persons who haveno|t paidthe stamp duty wouldbe ^TR—FS/95—1 1/2008—1,00,000. T 'T^r T^i^i<n^ ^Til^^Ko, I®i<ni^li< vj.p-^< 2-r^^ HW^i »»*81^ ••^200"? -^T^T^^^ ( ^I^^) ^n^i'^i'f^w ^I ^it^l ^^i<^ I^ITW^f^Ss^T na&le to pay untier the provistf under the main provision would Certified copv as per rules, Dut the oersons wtio have pald hot be entitled to refund. Sd/- Dhirendra M:ishra Judge Kvr ^HWM^ ^Rfe^ •RR^I ^l ft^ TN^R ^^^H^ltll Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^W^^^ ^uil^ <{«l-^i^lM—FS/95 —11/2008—1 ,00,000.