'^?,,- ^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Division Beuch) Coram: HonTale ShriJagdish BhaBa, Ag.C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agmhotri, J. Writ Petition No. 2310 of 2003 Petitioners 1. 2. M/s G. R. Sponge & Powcr Lmuted, A Coinpany duly mcorporated imder fhe relevaat Provisioas of fhe Companfes Act, 1956, Sffltara Industdal Area, Raipur. Rainesh Agrawal sou of Shri Oanpat Kai Agrawal, M/s G, R. Sponge & F'ower Limited Siltara Industrial Area, Kaipur. Versus Respondents 1. The State of Chliattisgarb through the Secretary, Ministiy of Finance DKS Bhavan, Raipur. The Inspector General of Kegistration and Superintendent of Stamps, Qovt. of Chattisgarh, Raipur. The District Registrar and Collcctor of Stamps, Kaipur Andhra Bank, a body Corporate having comiaon seal and Perpetual Succession haviag inter alia. amongst other branches, a branch at Fafadih Chowk, Raipur. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 236 AMD 227 OP THE CONSTITUTIOM OP INDIA 2. 3, 4. Shri Malay Kiimar Bhaduri, Advocate for fhe petitioners. Shri N. K. Agarwal, Depuly Advocate General for the respondents No. 1 to 3. Shri B. P. Sharma, Advocate for fhe reapondent No.4. ———^ ORAL ORDER (Rassed on this 4A day ofne-cember, 2007) The foUowiug oral order of the Court is passed by Hoa'ble Shri Jagdisbi Bhalbt, Aeting C^X. Learaed counsel appeariag-for the parties agree that this case is covered by the judgment and order dated 11.3.2005 passed by this Court in W.P.No. 4276/96 (Murarilal Agrawal & anoftierVs. The State ofM.P. & othcrs). Accordmgly this petition staads disposed ofwifh fhe sanie terms aiid conditions, which are as foUows:- (a) There is a differeiice between fhe two concepts, namely, atamp duty and rate ofduty; (b) The State Legislature has the competence to provide the rates of stamp duty as per Entay 63 read wifh Entiy 44 of List-III ofthe Sevenfh Schedule offhe Constitution; (c) There is no discrimination because a docmnent relatiug to iminovabte property is liabte to extra stainp duty under Sectioa 75 of the 1993 Act because it is situated wittun the block whereas a sunjlar property is not Uable to excess duly aotely on fhe ground it is situated wifhin fhe Municipal area; (d) Sectioa 75 of the 1993 Act is intra vires and fhe proviso to Sectfou 75 is to be given retrospective e&ct from. fhe date when Section 75 came into force Le. 25/01/1994; and (e) The retroactivity would have Umited effect so fhat the peraous who have not paid the stamp duly would be liable to pay under fh.e proviso but fhe peraons who have paid under . thc inam provision would uot be entitled to refiuid. Certified copy, as per Rutes. Thakur Sd/- ; Acting Chief Justice Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge .iMigiIT",