JUDGMENT Hon'ble SINGH, J.—D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 670/2004 has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7013/2004 dated 8.10.2004 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the impugned order dated 16.9.2004 and the notice dated 16.9.2004 filed as Annexure-12 and 13 to the writ petition was dismissed. 2. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that since the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Additional Collector (Stamps) and the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the Rajasthan Stamp Act of filing a revision petition and that being a statutory alternative remedy available to the petitioner, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 8.10.2004, the aforesaid appeal has been preferred. 4. Since the question involved in all the matters is identical, as was submitted by learned Senior counsel for the appellant - Life Insurance Corporation of India, similar matters which were pending before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur before the Single Bench were also on the request of the learned counsel for the parties were ordered to be heard along with this appeal by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 23.3.2006 and those matters are also being heard along with the aforesaid appeal, as requested by learned counsel for the parties. 5. After the appeal was preferred before the Division Bench, the Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 11.12.2004 taking note of the submissions made on the question involved was of the opinion that in such like matters arising between the State Government and the State/Central Government run undertakings should first be referred to a High Power Committee and only if either of the parties is dissatisfied with the outcome of the findings of High Power Committee in this regard should the matter be taken up by the Court. In terms of the order dated 11.12.2004 the appeal was disposed of with the stipulation that "Either of the party to the litigation is free to apply for revival of the appeal in case of its non-satisfaction with the decision of the Committee on the representation of the appellant Corporation, by filing a simple note." 6. In terms of the order dated 11.12.2004 the appeal was disposed of with the stipulation that "Either of the party to the litigation is free to apply for revival of the appeal in case of its non-satisfaction with the decision of the Committee on the representation of the appellant Corporation, by filing a simple note." 6. After the decision was taken on the representation filed by the appellant by High Power Committee, it appears that the appeal was restored to is original number as per the order of the Court dated 1.12.2005 passed in D.B. Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 204/2005, as per the note available on the file dated 6.12.2005. 7. After the restoration of the appeal, the order for consolidation of other similar matters to be heard along with this appeal came to be passed on 23.3.2006, as has been referred to above. 8. These cases were listed before the Court on several occasions and on 30.4.2009 as none appeared for the appellant, the appeal came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. On a restoration application having been filed, the appeal and the connected matters also came to be restored. It came to be restored vide order dated 3.11.2010 in the present appeal No. 670/2004. 9. It is in this backdrop that the appeals have been listed today before the Court for final adjudication. 10. The brief facts which are relevant for consideration of the controversy are that the appellant Life Insurance Corporation of India carrying on its activities within the State of Rajasthan is required to affix stamp duty on the policies of insurance issued by it in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as adapted to the State of Rajasthan by the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952. 11. It appears from the facts, as mentioned in the writ petition from which the Appeal No. 670/2004 arises, that in the year 1991 the appellant-Corporation vide its letter dated 18.8.1991 requested the Collector, Jaipur for making available the stamps in the treasury at Jaipur as the work of the appellant-Corporation was suffering on account of non-availability of the stamps and this was adversely affecting the business of the appellant-Corporation. It has been pleaded in he petition that the Treasury Officer at Jaipur sent a communication (Annexure-2) in response to the letter of the appellant-Corporation dated 19.8.1991 (Annex.2) stating therein that the India Insurance Stamps are the property of Central Government and the office of the Registrar (Stamps) has no concern with the aforesaid. This letter is said to have been sent on 7.10.1991. Armed with the aforesaid letter, the appellant-Corporation started purchasing the Insurance Stamps for affixation on the Insurance Policies issued by it from outside the State of Rajasthan and more particularly from Maharashtra. It is on account of the aforesaid purchase of stamps for payment of stamp duty from outside the State of Rajasthan that the appellant-Corporation was issued a notice indicating therein that the appellant-Corporation has no right to purchase the tamps from Pune in Maharashtra and affix these stamps on its Insurance Policies being executed in the State of Rajasthan and thereby causing loss to the Revenue of the State right from 1994-95 to 2001-02 amounting to Rs. 119.77 lacs and accordingly they were asked to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 119.77 lacs with he respondents. The appellant-Corporation submitted their reply through their counsel which is Annexure-4 on record and ultimately the impugned order dated 16.9.2004 (Annexure-12) came to be passed. 12. As per the impugned order dated 16.9.2004 (Annexure-12) passed by the Additional Collector (Stamps), Jaipur it was held that undisputedly stamp duty was being paid by way of adhesive stamps. The aforesaid stamps for payment of stamp duty were being purchased from outside the State of Rajasthan for being affixed on the Insurance Policies being issued within the State of Rajasthan by the appellant-Corporation. It was further held that the aforesaid act on the part of the appellant-Corporation was contrary to the provisions of Rules 3 and 4. It was also indicated in the order that the plea taken by the appellant-Corporation based upon the letter dated 19.8.1991 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and the reply dated 7.10.1991 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) was not tenable inasmuch as the appellant-Corporation in their letter dated 19.8.1991 had only drawn the attention of the respondent-State and its functionaries to the "non-availability of Agents License Fee Stamps" and not to the "India Insurance Stamps" which are required to be affixed on the Insurance Policies. Accordingly, the Additional Collector (Stamps) in his order dated 16.9.2004 held that the appellant-Corporation has committed a breach of the provisions of the Rules and they were liable to pay stamp duty and penalty but looking to the fact that the appellant-Corporation is a Government of India Undertaking, the imposition of penalty was waived. Based on the above order, the demand of Rs. 119.75 lacs was raised against the appellant-Corporation vide Annexure-13. the relevant portion of the order (Annexure-12) reads as follows: ^^geus mHk; i{kksa }kjk izLrqr rdksZa ij fopkj fd;kA Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe }kjk chek ikWfylh ij LVsEi pLik djus ds mís'; ls 119-75 yk[k :i;s dh jkf'k ds ,Msflo LVsEi jkT; ds ckgj ls Ø; djuk ,d Loh—r rF; gS rFkk ckgj ls Ø; fd;s x;s LVsEi dk mi;ksx chek ikWfylh ij djuk Hkh fuxe Lohdkj djrk gSA bl izdkj jktLFkku LVsEi fu;e 3 o 4 ds izko/kkuksa ds f[kykQ ,Msflo LVsEi dk mi;ksx chek ikWfylh ij fd;k x;k gSA blfy;s bu chek ikWfyfl;ksa dks leqfpr eqnzkad ;qä ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA fuxe dk ;g rdZ Hkh ekuus ;ksX; ugha gS fd chek ikWfylh ij mi;ksx ea vkus okys LVsEi jkT; esa miyC/k ugha FksA fuxe dk i= fnukad 19-8-1991 ,oa mlds tokc esa v/kh{kd ¼eqnzkad½ }kjk Hksts x;s i= fnukad 7-10-1981 esa xouZesaV vkWQ bf.M;k ba';ksjsal LVsEi dk vadu gSA ;s LVsEi ,stsalh LVsEi gS u fd chek ikWfylh ij yxus okys bf.M;k ba';ksjsal LVsEiA bl izdkj 119-75 yk[k :i;s dh jkf'k dh ,Msflo LVkEi dk mi;ksx fuxe }kjk chek ikWfylh ij djus ls mUgsa leqfpr eqnazkd ;qä ugha ekuk tk ldrkA xyr LVsEi dk mi;ksx Li"Vr;k% jkT; ljdkj ds jktLo dks uqdlku igqapkus dk —R; gSA ,sls ekeyksa esa LVsEi 'kqYd dh 10 xquk rd iSuYVh yxkus dk izko/kku LVkEi vf/kfu;e esa fo|eku gS fdUrq mä fuxe ,d ljdkj dk miØe gS rFkk xyr LVsEi dk mi;ksx cnfu;fr ls djus dk dksbZ ugha gS blfy;s iSuYVh yxkuk esa mfpr ugha le>rkA bl izdkj Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ls mä 119-75 yk[k :i;s olwy djus ds vkns'k fn;s tkrs gSA ekax o olwyh iaftdk esa vadu fd;k tkosA** 13. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders (Annexure-12 and 13), the appellant-Corporation preferred writ petition before the learned Single Judge being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7013/2004 (LIC of India vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). 14. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders (Annexure-12 and 13), the appellant-Corporation preferred writ petition before the learned Single Judge being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7013/2004 (LIC of India vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). 14. The learned Single Judge before whom the matter came up was of the opinion that under Section 65 of the Act, the appellant-Corporation has an alternative statutory remedy of revision and, therefore, on the ground of not having exhausted the alternative remedy, the writ petition was dismissed. 15. We are of the opinion that so far as the reason given by the learned Single Judge of there being alternative efficacious remedy is concerned, no exception can be taken to the same and in such like matters, the rule of exhaustion of statutory alternative remedy must be adhered to. 16. However, in view of the fact and more particularly since the Division Bench of this Court had entertained the appeal and had disposed of the same vide its earlier order dated 11.12.2004 permitting the appellant-Corporation to approach the High Power Committee in the mater and giving liberty to the aggrieved party to get the appeal restored and revived if any of the parties was not satisfied with the outcome of the matter before the High Power Committee and based upon the decision of the representation given by the High Power Committee a restoration application was moved which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 1.12.2005 we are of the view that the matter now requires to be adjudicated on merits and also on account of the fact that against the interim order the matter went before the Hon'ble Supreme court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed vide its order dated 1.12.2007 for the decision of the appeal by this Court without being influenced by he decision taken by the High Power Committee and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 1.2.2007. 17. Having noticed the aforesaid facts we now proceed to examine the matter on merits. 18. 17. Having noticed the aforesaid facts we now proceed to examine the matter on merits. 18. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Corporation submitted that the dispute has arisen only on account of the fact of non-availability of India Insurance Stamps in the year 1991 and the permission sought by the appellant-Corporation for purchasing the aforesaid stamps from outside the State of Rajasthan vide Annexure-1 dated 19.8.1991 and the said permission was accorded by the respondents vide their letter dated 7.10.1991 (Annexure-2). 19. The learned Senior Counsel Shri Jagdeep Dhankar relied heavily upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.V.S. Rama Sharma and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported (2009) 7 SCC 234 where as per the learned Senior Counsel a similar controversy had arisen with regard to purchase of stamps by the officers of the appellant-Corporation at Varanasi from outside the State of U.P. and for having effected the aforesaid loss on account of Purchase of the stamps from outside the State, an F.I.R. No. 271/2004 was lodged against the officers of the appellant-Corporation, some of whom had even retired, for the offences under Section 420/409 IPC and under Sections 64/69 of the Stamp Act. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court after noticing the provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899 as well as the provisions of United Provinces Stamp Rules, 1942 and the provisions of the Constitution of India contained in Article 268 read with the relevant Entries in Lists-I, II and III of the Seventh Schedule and the facts and law quashed the F.I.R. holding that it was wholly immaterial from where the Insurance Corporation was purchasing the stamps i.e. from within the State of U.P. or from outside the State of U.P. In the light of the above, learned Senior Counsel contended on behalf of the appellant-Corporation that the order passed by the respondent (Annexure-12) and the notice for demand (Annexure-13) both dated 16.9.2004 are without jurisdiction and deserve to be quashed. 20. Learned Advocate General Mr. 20. Learned Advocate General Mr. G.S. Bafna appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand submitted, while distinguishing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.V.S. Rama Sharma's case (supra) that the position prevailing in the State of U.P., as noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment and in the case at hand are totally distinct. It was submitted that in V.V.S. Rama Sharma's case (supra), relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-Corporation, the case was under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Rules framed thereunder which were United Provinces Stamp Rules, 1942 whereas the position in the State of Rajasthan was somewhat different. It was submitted by the learned Advocate General that in the State of Rajasthan the Legislature had passed the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 which after receiving the assent of the President on 16.2.1952 was brought into force w.e.f. 15.5.1952 and the Section 2 of the same reads as follows :- "2. Application of Indian Act.—Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (II of 1899) of the Central Legislature as amended from time to time hereinafter referred to as the Indian Act shall apply to the whole of the State of Rajasthan on and from 1.4.1958." 21. It was thus, contended by learned Advocate General that the State Act of 1952 though being an adaptation, importing the provisions of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 to be applicable to the State of Rajasthan it had however provisions in addition to the Central Act of 1899 and, therefore, the adaptation of the Central Act was made subject to the provisions of the Rajasthan Act of 1952 and the Act of 1952 which had received the assent of the President in terms of the Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India and it being a special Act would override the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 in case of any repugnancy as seen in the Rajasthan Act and Rules framed thereunder. 22. The learned Advocate General submitted that as per the provisions of Section 3 of the State Act of 1952 and more particularly clause (v) thereof, the reference to "Government" made in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 shall be construed as the reference to the State Government. 22. The learned Advocate General submitted that as per the provisions of Section 3 of the State Act of 1952 and more particularly clause (v) thereof, the reference to "Government" made in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 shall be construed as the reference to the State Government. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred by the Act of 1899 under Section 10 as well as the powers conferred by the State Act of 1952, the State of Rajasthan had enacted the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1955 (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Rajasthan Rules of 1955") where under Rule 3 it was required that on every instrument on which stamp duty is chargeable, the same shall be paid by means of stamps issued by the "Government". The learned Advocate General submitted that reference to the term "Government" under Rule 3, as defined under Rule 2 clause (d) of the Rajasthan Rules of 1955 refers to the Government of the State of Rajasthan and accordingly, the stamp duty as per the scheme of the Act and the Rules, the same is to be paid to the State of Rajasthan by means of stamps issued by the Government of Rajasthan. 23. It was submitted that the act of the appellant of purchasing stamps from outside the State of Rajasthan after paying for the value thereof in the State of Maharashtra cannot be construed as amounting to payment of stamp duty envisaged under Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Rules of 1955. It was also submitted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.V.S. Rama Sharma's case (supra) is on the peculiar facts and circumstances relating to the criminal liability for the offence under Section 420/409 IPC is based upon the provisions of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the United Provinces Rules of 1942 which as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not prohibit the purchase of stamps from outside the State of U.P. The learned Advocate General submitted that as against the aforesaid, under the Rajasthan Act of 1952 there are provisions contained by virtue of Section 3A which would be attracted to the case at hand since the appellant-Corporation is claiming that it was on account of non-availability of the stamps that the appellant-Corporation wrote the letter dated 19.8.1991 for permission to purchase the stamps from outside the State of Rajasthan. The learned Advocate General submitted that as per the provisions contained in Section 3A and the Scheme enumerated therein in the case of non-availability of adhesive or impressed stamps, the document can be executed on an unstamped paper and the duty can be paid in any Government Treasury in cash and the receipt of the challan issued by the Receiving Officer for cash would be affixed to the instrument. Thus, the Act does not envisage purchase of any stamp by the persons liable to pay the stamp duty from outside the State, as was done by the appellant-Corporation. 24. The learned Advocate General also pointed out that similar provisions as contained in Section 3A of the Rajasthan Act, 1952 did not come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.V.S. Rama Sharma (supra) relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-Corporation and as such the judgment is distinguishable on facts and law from the case at hand. 25. The learned Advocate General also submitted that in the present case, as per the findings given by the Additional Collector in the impugned order (Annexure-12) dated 16.9.2004 there is a clear finding against the appellant Corporation that the appellant-Corporation affixed Agent Stamps and not Insurance Stamps (not Indian Insurance Stamps) which are liable to be affixed on the Insurance Policies and also that in the letter (Annexure-1), the appellant-Corporation did not seek any permission with regard to the purchase of Indian Insurance Stamp but only drew the attention of the authorities of the State to the non-availability of "Agent License Fee Stamp" and sought, permission for obtaining the same from Pune. He, therefore, submits that reliance upon the Annexure-1 by the appellant-Corporation is of no consequence so far as the impugned order (Annexure-12) is concerned. 26. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation contended that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.V.S. Rama Sharma case (supra) wherein para 23 of the report their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have laid down after having analyzed the requisite entries of the Seventh Schedule of Lists-I, II and III with reference to Article 254 of the Constitution of India that it is Entry 91 of the List-I of the 7th Schedule which is attracted and that the Sates "do not have the powers to circumvent the Central law". He, therefore, submits that the order passed by the Additional Collector (Annexure-12) and the consequential demand notice (Annexure-1) deserves to be quashed. 27. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have perused the record as well as the provisions of statutes to which the attention of the Court has been drawn by the learned counsel for the parties. 28. So far as the State of Rajasthan is concerned, it is not in dispute that for the period between years 1993-94 to 2001 to 2002 for which the notice was issued to the appellant Corporation the relevant statutes applicable are the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 read that the provisions contained in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1955 framed thereunder, Section 2 of the Rajasthan Act of 1952 has already been quoted above. Section 3 clause (v) of the same reads as follows :- "(v) references in the Indian Act to any Government shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as references to the Sate Government, that is to say, to the Government of the State of Rajasthan as formed by Section 10 of the State Re-organisation Act, 1956 (Central Act 37 of 1956) : Provided that in clause (i) of Section 3 of the Indian Act, the word "Government" wherever occurring shall mean the State Government as well as the Central Government." Section 3A of the Act of 1952 provides as follows : "3A. Payment of stamp duty in cash.-(1) Where the Government or the Collector under instructions of the State Govt., by order published in the Official Gazette, declares that adhesive or impressed stamps of any denomination are not in stock for sale in sufficient quantity, then, notwithstanding anything, contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder and during the period of said order remains in force- (i) any instruction chargeable with the stamp duty under this Act may be executed on an unstamped paper; (ii) the stamp duty chargeable on such instrument under this Act may be paid to or collected by any Government treasury in cash and a receipt or challan therefore shall be duly given by the officer receiving the cash. (iii) the officer-in-charge of the Government treasury shall, as soon as may be, after the stamp duty chargeable on any such instrument under this Act has been received in cash, make on the instrument for which the stamp duty has been paid in cash, make on the instrument for which the stamp duty has been paid in cash, the following endorsement, after due verification that the stamp duty has been paid in cash for such instrument, and after canceling such receipt or challan so that it cannot be used again, namely:- Stamp duty of Rs. .......... paid in cash vide receipt/challan No. ......... dated ............." (iv) the instrument endorsed under clause (iii) shall be deemed to be duly stamped under this Act and may be used or acted upon as such to all intents and for all purposes; Explanation.—For the purpose of sub-section (1) "Government treasury" includes a Government sub-treasury and any other place as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint in this behalf. (2) An order made under sub-section (1) shall remain in force for such time as may be specified therein: Provided that the State Government or the Collector under the instructions of the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time extend the period for such order for such further time as maybe considered necessary for making stock of adhesive or impressed stamps available for sale. (3) The State Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, direct 'that the power exercisable by it or by the Collector or by the Officer-in-charge of a Government treasury under this Section may be exercised by such other officer as may be specified in the order. (4) Nothing contained in the payment of stamp instruments specified in Seventh Schedule to the this Section shall apply to duty chargeable on the entry 91 of List I of the Constitution of India. (5) An order under this Section may be made for the whole or any part of the State. (6) Nothing contained in this section shall, during the period an order under this section remains in force, render invalid any stamp which may be used in accordance with the other provisions of this Act." 29. (5) An order under this Section may be made for the whole or any part of the State. (6) Nothing contained in this section shall, during the period an order under this section remains in force, render invalid any stamp which may be used in accordance with the other provisions of this Act." 29. The above provision of Section 3A is relevant so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, as it was the case of the appellant-Corporation that vide their letter dated 19.8.1991 (Annexure-1_ they had sought exemption and permission to purchase the stamps from outside the State on account on non-availability. The aforesaid provision deals with the entire situation and in the even of the non-availability of the stamps the same was liable to be deposited in cash in accordance with the aforesaid provisions by means of a Treasury challan and the receipt affixed to the instrument, as such, seeking permission for purchase of the stamp from outside the State of Rajasthan is not envisaged under the provisions of Act, 1952 and even assuming that such a permission had been granted vide Annexure-2 dated 7.10.1991, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant, the same being contrary to the Schedule of the Act has no legal sanction. This is also relevant because the appellants have not been saddled with any penalty or penal consequences. 30. Having held so we are also of the view, as was submitted by the learned Advocate General that permission which was sought vide Annexure-1 was on account of non-availability of "Agents License Fees Stamps" and not for "Indian Insurance Stamps" which are required to be affixed on the policy documents by the appellant-Corporation and this is the finding which has been given by the Additional Collector in the impugned order as follows :- ^^----- fuxe dk i= fnukad 19-8-1991 ,oa mlds tokc esa v/kh{kd ¼eqnzkad½ }kjk Hksts x;s i= fnukad 7-10-1981 esa xouZesaV vkWQ bf.M;k ba';ksjsal LVsEi dk vadu gSA ;s LVsEi ,tsUlh LVsEi gS u fd chek ikWfylh ij yxus okys bf.M;k ba'kksjsal LVsEiA bl izdkj 119-75 yk[k :i;s dh jkf'k dh ,Msflo LVkEi dk mi;ksx fuxe }kjk chek ikWfylh ij djus ls mUgsa leqfpr eqnzkad ;qä ugha ekuk tk ldrkA xyr LVsEi dk mi;ksx Li"Vr;k% jkT; ljdkj ds jktLo dks uqdlku igqapkus dk —R; gSA-----** 31. From the above findings given by the Additional Collector, there is no escape that the appellant-Corporation had sought the permission only with regard to the gents License Fee Stamps on account of its non-availability and in fact purchased the India Insurance Stamps for affixation on the policies of Insurance which was not permissible in view of the provisions contained in the Rajasthan act o 1952 read with Rajasthan Rules of 1955. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1955 reads as follows :- "3. Mode of payment of duty.—Except as otherwise provided by the Act, or by these rules,- (1) all duties with which any instrument is chargeable shall be paid, and such payment shall be indicated on such instrument, by means of stamps issued by the Government for the purpose of the Act and these Rules; and (2) a stamp which by any word or words on the face of it is appropriated to any particular kind of instrument shall not be used for any instrument of any other kind. Explanation.—For the purpose of clause (1), a stamp of the Central Government or of the Government of any covenanting State shall be deemed to have been superimposed with word "Rajasthan" or with the letter "RAJ." The Government has been defined under Rule 2(d) as follows : "2(d) "Government" means the Government of the State of Rajasthan." 32. Since it is not dispute that the insurance stamps are required to be affixed on the policy documents issued by the appellant-Corporation for payment of duty chargeable on the document in terms of Rule 3(i), such duty can only be paid by means of the stamps issued by the Government i.e. the Government of Rajasthan as defined under Rule 2(d) read with the provisions of Section 3(v) of the Act of 1952. The only exception is as provided under Section 3A which enables a person to pay the stamp duty in cash by depositing the cash in the Government Treasury in the event of non-availability of stamps and affixed the receipt of challan with the instrument. 33. The only exception is as provided under Section 3A which enables a person to pay the stamp duty in cash by depositing the cash in the Government Treasury in the event of non-availability of stamps and affixed the receipt of challan with the instrument. 33. We are, therefore, of the opinion that under the Scheme of the Rajasthan ct, 1952 and the Rajasthan Rules, 1955, referred to hereinabove, the stamp duty payable under the Act is required to be paid by means of stamps issued by the State Government and affixation of any stamp purchased from outside the State of Rajasthan which do not bear the superimposition of the words "Rajasthan" or the letters "RAJ" as mentioned in the explanation of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1955 would not be sufficient compliance for the purpose of the Act. 34. On account of the above and the findings given by the learned Additional Collector in his order dated 16.9.2004 (Annexure-12) there is no escape from the conclusion that the appellants failed to discharge their obligation of payment of duty on the documents i.e. the policy, of insurance issued in Rajasthan by affixing stamps having not been purchased from authorized persons within the State of Rajasthan superimposed with the words "Rajasthan" or letters "RAJ". Accordingly, we find no error in the order passed by the learned Additional Collector against the appellant-Corporation and the demand raised for Rs. 119.75 lacs and not imposing penalty on the same which could be upto ten times. 35. We may also deal with the passing reference made by the learned Senior Advocate Shri Dhanakar to the provisions of the Seventh Schedule and Entry 91 of the List-I (Union List) and Entry 63 of the List-II (State List) and Entry 44 of the List-III i.e. the Government List. The learned counsel had sought to urge that the field was occupied by the Stamp Act, 1899 under List-I Entry 91 and there was thus no roam for enacting any enactment by the State on this occupied field. 36. We have considered the aforesaid plea and we find that there is a marked difference in the scope to which Entry 91 of Entry 44 of List-III operate. Entry 91 of List-I reads as follows : "91. Rates of stamp duty in respect of bills of exchange, ..... 36. We have considered the aforesaid plea and we find that there is a marked difference in the scope to which Entry 91 of Entry 44 of List-III operate. Entry 91 of List-I reads as follows : "91. Rates of stamp duty in respect of bills of exchange, ..... policies of insurance ....." and the Entry 44 of List-III reads as follows : "44, Stamp duties other than duties or fees collected by means of judicial stamps, but not including rates of stamp duty." 37. A bare perusal of the two goes to show that under List-I Entry 91 the Union Legislature is empowered to enact laws relating to Rates of Stamp Duties whereas under the concurrent list (List-III) Entry 44 laws may be enacted by either the State or the Central Legislature as matters relating to Stamp Duties other than by way of judicial stamps and also excluding the fixing of the rates from the same. This is a marked difference in the sphere of the operation of the two Entries and it cannot be said that the State Act of 1952 which received the assent of the President operates in any occupied field covered by Entry 91 of List-I reserved for the Central Legislature or Parliament. The difference between fixing of the rates of stamp duty and its collection or ancillary matters other than fixing of the rates falls within the sphere of Entry 44 of List III and Entry 63 of List-II of the Seventh Schedule. In this view of the matter, we find no force in the above submission made on behalf of the appellants. 38. We are also in agreement with the submission of 'the learned Advocate General that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.V.S. Rama Sharma (supra) has to be seen in the context in which it arises more so when it does not deal with a situation as in the present case where the State Rules which though of 1955 being somewhat similar to the Rules of U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942 are distinct as they contain specific provisions such as Rule 115A, referred to in para 20 of the judgment which provide that stamps would be the property of Central Govt. and to be sold through the post offices. There is no provision either under the State Act of 1952 or under the State Rules of 1955. and to be sold through the post offices. There is no provision either under the State Act of 1952 or under the State Rules of 1955. The State Act of 1952 to the extent it is inconsistent with the Central Act of 1899 has an overriding effect as the State Act is a special law having received the assent of the President which was not the case in the State of U.P. where the Central Act is applicable more so the case related to the whether or not the appellants in that case had committed a criminal offence under the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899. 39. We accordingly, find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 40. The Writ Petition Nos. 8187/2004, 3418/2006, 3419/2006 and 3420/2006 which were ordered to be heard along with the SAW No. 670/2004 vide order dated 23.3.2006 also stand disposed of in the light of the above judgment. A Photostat copy of this judgment be placed in the file of each of the writ petitions.