R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was granted lease by Gujarat State Financial Corporation and the petitioner had executed security document including a memorandum entry in favor of Gujarat State Financial Corporation on 7/04/1992 and on that document, stamp duty was paid and affixed amounting to Rs. 4,375. 00. ( 2 ) BY letter dated 16/04/1992 (Annexure-F), the Gujarat State Finance Corporation called upon the petitioner to pay a further amount of Rs. 20,625. 00 alleging that the duty payable would be Rs. 25,000. 00 by virtue of the Government notification dated 6/04/1992. ( 3 ) THAT notification dated 6/04/1992 is Annexure-A to the petition. It is issued under Section 9 (a) of the Bombay Stamp Act. The heading of the section is Power to reduce, remit or compound duties and it provides that the State Government may, by rule or order published in the Official Gazette, reduce or remit, whether prospectively or retrospectively, the duties with which any instrument or any peculiar class of instrument is chargeable. It is, thus, clear that under this provision, the power has been granted to the State Government to remit or reduce stamp duty prospectively or retrospectively. Since it is a provision whereby the liability for the stamp duty is reduced, the power has been given to do so even retrospectively. ( 4 ) HOWEVER, purporting to exercise this power and purporting to state that the Government of Gujarat hereby reduces with effect on and from the 1/04/1992, in the whole of the State of Gujarat, the duty, virtually and resultantly it increases the duty because this notification dated 6/04/1992 is in supersession of the earlier notification under Section 9 (a ). Under earlier notification, reduced rate of duty was already there and accordingly, the stamp duty was paid by the petitioner. By the present notification, earlier notifiction is superseded and new rates of duty have been prescribed. These new rates of duties, even though they are reduced rates of duty as compared to the rates laid down in the schedule to the Act, they increas the rates of duty which were prevailing previously under the previous notification and this cannot be done retrospectively. Notification dated 6/04/1992 was gazetted and published on 26/06/1992. These new rates of duties, even though they are reduced rates of duty as compared to the rates laid down in the schedule to the Act, they increas the rates of duty which were prevailing previously under the previous notification and this cannot be done retrospectively. Notification dated 6/04/1992 was gazetted and published on 26/06/1992. Therefore, the so called reduced rates (which are in fact higher rates than prevailing previously) could not have been made effective retrospectively and the petitioner could not have been asked to pay the duty at higher rate which came to be gazetted and published on 26/06/1992. These higher rates could not have been made effective retrospectively and, therefore, this petition must succeed. ( 5 ) A similar view was also taken in Special Application No. 2899 of 1992. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, Rule is made absoulute with costs by directing that the petitioners document is liable to the stamp duty as per the rate that was prevailing before the impugned notification dated 6/04/1992 and that the new rate prescribed by that notification is not applicable to the petitioners document executed on 7/04/1992. The respondents are, therefore, directed to refund the differential stamp duty. ( 7 ) AT the hearing for the interim relief, the Gujarat State Financial Corporation was permitted to deduct the amount of differential stamp duty by affixing additional stamps on the document and it was directed that if the petitioner succeeds, the amount of differential stamp duty would have to be refunded by the State Government within such time as may be directed by this Court, to the petitioner. It was also noted that the rate of interest which may be payable by the State Government to the petitioner in the case of such refund would be such as may be ultimately directed by this Court at the final hearing. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, it is further directed that the amount of differential stamp duty shall be refunded to the petitioner within two months from today with 12% interest from the date of payment of stamp duty till the date of actual refund. The amount of differential stamp duty and the interest shall be paid within two months from today. (RMC) Order accordingly. .