lyr MICSft COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Division Bench) Coraxa: Hon^ble ShriJagdish BhaBa, Ag.C.J. & Hon^ble Shri Satish K. ^mhotd, J. Writ Petition No. 4180 of2003 Petitioner G. R, Sponge and Power Ltd. a coinpany duiy iD.corporated under the relevaat provisions of fbe CoBipariies Act, 1956 haviag its Pactory at Industrial Area, Raipur. Versus Respondents 1. The State of Chhattisgarh fhrough fhe Secretaiy, Mmistxy of Fmance aad Revenue, Raipur. 2. 'l'he Inspcctor Genemt of Registeation and Superintendeut of Stamps, Govt. of Chattisgarh, l^rcscntly Workmg at Gwalior. 3. The District Registrar and CoUector ofStanips, Raipur ^t, Andhra Baak, a body Corporate haviag comxaon seal and Perpetual Succession haviag iater aUa amoxigst ofh.er braaches, a branch at Fafadih Chowk, Kaipiir. WmT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OP INDIA Shri Malay Kuinar Bhaduri, Advocate for fhe petitioners, Shri N. K, Agarwal, Deputy Adv€K?at€ General for fhe rcspondeats No. 1 to 3, Shri B. P, Sharsia, Advocate for tbe rcspoxsdeiit No,4, v^f^^w •^'•^r, ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 4& day ofnecemher, 2007) The followiag oial oider of the Court is passed by Hon'Me Slnrt Jagdish BhaUa, Acting CJ. ^- Leanied counsel appearmg for fhe parties agree fhat fhis case m covered by fhe judgment aad oxder dated 11.3.2005 passed by this Comt in W.P.No. 4276/96 (Murarilal Agrawal & aaofher Vs. The State of M.P. & ofhers). Accordiugly fhis (^tition staods disposed ofwiththe sasxie terms axid coaditioas, which are as foltows:" (a) There is a difference between fhe two co&cepta, namely, stanip duly and rate ofduly; (b) The State Legislature has fhe competence to provide fhe rates of stamp duty as per Entsy 63 read with Entxy 44 of List-III offhe Sevenfh Schedule offhe Coastitutioii; (c) There is no discrimination because a document relatmg to mimovabte property is liable to extra stamp duty under Section 75 ofthe 1993 Act because it is situated wifhm fhe block whereas a simflar property is not liabte to excess duty solefy on fhe ground it is situated wifhin fbe Muiiicipal area; (d) Section 75 of ftie 1993 Act is intea vires aod fhe proviso to Section 75 is to be given retrospective eflfect fix>m fhe date wheu Section 75 came iato force Le. 25/01/1994; and (e) The retroactivity would have limited ejQfect so fhat the persons who have aot paid fhe stamp duty would be liabte to pay under fhe proviso but fhe personswho have paid under fhe main provision would notbe entiUed to rcfiind^ Certi&ed copy, as per Rules. Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur