(Q HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I'I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR (Division Bench) Comm: Ilon’blc Shri Jagdish Bhalla, Ag C J. 85 Hon’blc Shn' Satish K. Agnihou‘i', J. Writ Petition No. 2442 of 2004 Petitioners 1. Krishna Iron Strips and ’l‘ubcs Private Limitcd. A Company duly in oorporated under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act 1956, having Its Factaxy and Omce Act Industn‘al Area, Samra, Raipur (Chhattiagarh). 2. Sum'l Agawal S/o. Shri Krishna Agrawal, aged about 4'4 years. 3. Sum'l Agrawal S/o. Ramdhari Agmwal, agad about 32 years. Both Dircctors of Kxishna Iron Strits and Tubes Pn'vatc Limiftd Industrial Area Samra, Raipur. Vcrsus Respondents 1. State of Chhamsgarh Through— The Secretaxy, Minisuy of Finance and Revenue, Raipur. The Inspector General of Registration and Superintendent of Stamps, Govt. of Chattisgarh, Pmsently worldng at Gwalior. 3. The District Registrar and Collccwr of Stamp, Raipur 4. The Bank of India, A body Corporate having Common Seal and ‘ Perpetual Succession, having Inter—alia amongst other Branches, a brancn at .Ravibhawan Sharada Chowk Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITIGN UNDER ARTICLE 226 227 OF TH CONQTITUTION OF INDIA 10 Shn’ 1’. K. 'l‘uisiyan, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Vinay Hark Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No. 1 to 3. None for the respondent No.4. 4. 13§§3 ORAL ORDER (Passeri on this 7th day of December, 2007) The following om} under of the Court is passed by Hon’ble Shri Jagdish Bhalla, Acting C.J. Learned counsel appearing for the parties agree that this case is coveted by the judgment and order dated 11.3.2005 passed ‘by this Court in w.P.No.. 4276/96 (Muran'lal Agrawal 83 another Vs. The State of M.P. 63 others). Accordingly this petition stands disposed of with the same tems and conditions, which am as follows:— There is a diifexence between the two concepts, namely, stamp duty and rate of duty; The State Legislature has the competence to provide the mtes of stamp duty as per Enhy 63 read with Enuy 44 of List—III ofthe Seventh Schedule of the Constitution; There is no discrimination because “a document relating to mmovable property is liable to extra stamp duty under Section 75 of the 1993’Act because it is situated Within the block whereas a similar property is not liable to excess duty solely on the ground it is situated within the Municipal area; Section 75 of the 1993 Act is intxa vires and the proviso to Section 75 is to be given xetmspective ed‘ect from the date when Section 75 came into force ie. 25/01/ 1994; and The retioactivity would have limited effect so that the persons who have not paid the stamp duty would be liable to pay under the proviso butthe persons who have paid‘under the main provision would not be entitled to refund.” (d) (€) Certified copy, as per Rules. k ‘ Sd/- [(ctmgiEe? dustice Thakur i t e