HIGH COURT OF cgHATTISGARH : BILASPQR WRIT PETIT!ON N0.2533 OF 2002 PETITIO§ER Vishnu Chemicals (Pvt) Ltd., a company duly incorporated under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its factory at industriai Estate, Nandini Road, Bhilai, District Durg‘ Versus hf State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Durg. RTS ESPONDEN 2. The lnspector General of Registration ‘ and Superintendent of Stamps, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 3. The District Registrar and Collector of Stamps, Raipur. Andhra Bank, a body corporate having common seal and perpetual succession having inter alia amongst other branches a branch ofttce at Civic Centre, Bhitai, Durg. (Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of indie) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri B.P. Sharma with Shri K. Shanna, counsel for the petitionerr Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the State. O LORER (Passed on this 9 day of January, 2009) Learned counsel appearing for the State very fairly stated that this matter is squarely coveredby order dated 7-2-2003 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in bunch of cases bearing writ petition No.4854 of 1999 and the connected matters. This matter has also been reported in 2003 (1) MPJR - SN 62 (W.P.No.4854 of 1999 - Mls Vikas Concrete-Industries vs. State of M.P.). 2) The points raised in this petition are‘simiiar to tha of the points raised in the aforesaid writ petitions and the same have been decided by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. It is submitted that while deciding the aforesaid writ petitions, the Division Bench has observed as under: “(a) There is a difference between the two concepts, namely, stamp duty and rate of duty: (b) The State Legislature has the competence to provide the rates of stamp duty as per There is no discrimination because a document relating to immovable 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; (d) Section 75 of the 1993 Act is intra vires and the proviso to Section 75 is to be given retrospective effect from the date when Section 75 came into force i.e. 25/01/1994; and (e) The retroactivity would have limited effect so that the persons who have not paid the stamp duty would be liable to pay under the proviso but the persons who have paid under the main provision would not be entitled to refund." 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute this legal position. 4) in view of the submissions made by teamed counsei appearing for the parties and particularly the fact that this matter issquarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, this petition stands finally disposed of with the observations quoted above. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (C) t