- (1.) Heard Sri Atul Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.P. Singh Kachhwah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the instrument in question was executed in favour of the petitioner by M/s. L.J. Builders, whereby, an area of 30344 Sq. Mts. of the constructed building was given on lease for 12 years under a Memorandum of Understanding and no stamp duty was paid. By letter No. 653 dated 13.12.2006, the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), Kanpur Nagar referred the matter to the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, under section 33(4) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')- Thereafter, a notice dated 16.1.2007 was issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Kanpur Nagar to the petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why deficiency in stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 63,00,400 and penalty and interest be not demanded. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 8.3.2007 stating therein that he is ready to pay the entire deficiency of stamp duty as alleged, provided the penalty and interest be waived off. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application dated 27.4.2007 in Stamp Case No. 555 of 2006-07 in which it has been stated that a sum of Rs. 63,00,000/- has been deposited by him towards the alleged deficiency of stamp duty through Bank Draft No. 10040 dated 9.4.2007 of UTI Bank Ltd., Delhi. He again requested to waive off the interest and penalty. A sum of Rs. 400/- was also deposited by him through treasury challan dated 28.4.2007. Under the circumstances, the Collector, Kanpur Nagar passed the order dated 28.3.2007 in Stamp Case No. 33 of 2006-07, under section 33/47-A of the Act, determining the stamp duty of Rs. 63,00,400/- and also demanded interest at the rate of Rs. 1.5% per month w.e.f. 17.12.2005. The penalty of Rs. 1,99,600/- was also imposed.
(2.) Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner filed Stamp Revision No. 6 of 2007-08 before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 14.7.2014. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that just after issuance of notice itself, the petitioner has deposited the entire deficiency of stamp duty as pointed out by the authority. The petitioner was under bona fide belief that no stamp duty is chargeable on the memorandum of understanding and as such no stamp duty was paid. However when a notice was issued and it was pointed out that there is deficiency of stamp duty, as the instrument in question is chargeable as a lease deed under Article 35(a)(iv) of Schedule I-B, the petitioner has immediately paid the entire amount on the condition that the penalty may be waived off. He submits that there is no suppression of fact in the deed. The entire details is duly set forth in the memorandum of understanding and as such no penalty could have been imposed.;