- (1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) Having regard to the fact that the certified copy of the impugned order dated 30.9.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division has been filed in this petition, we are of the opinion that relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this case are not in dispute and therefore it is not necessary to grant time for filing counter affidavit. In fact it would not be in the interest of State also to delay the matter by calling for counter affidavit.
(3.) The petitioner is a Telecom Service Provider. For the purpose of providing the service the petitioner claims that he takes empty roof top spaces of buildings on licence for installing transmitter towers. The respondents gave one common show cause notice alleging with regard to 17 such transactions that the instruments of the licence were legally to be treated as instruments of lease and accordingly the deficiency of stamp duty and penalty was imposed upon the petitioner in respect of the 17 transactions by a common order. Against that common order the petitioner preferred a revision No. 77 of 2004-05 under Section 56(i) of the Stamp Act before the respondent No. 3 along with an application for interim stay of recovery.;