AJAY BHANOT,J. - (1.) The matter relates to imposition of stamp duty on an instrument of sale executed between the parties on 03.08.2004 being House No. D36/178 situated at Mohalla August Kund, Ward Dasasumedh, Varanasi with an area of 2686 sq.ft. The stamp duty of Rs. 1.80 lacs was paid on the aforesaid instrument and the valuation of the instrument as contained in the recital in the sale deed is of Rs. 18 lacs. The recital in the sale-deed further discloses that the total area of the plot is 2686 sq. ft. while the covered area as per such recital is 2600 sq.ft.
(2.) The Revenue opined that there was deficiency in the payment of stamp duty on the said transaction. Accordingly proceedings under the Stamp Act were initiated for assessment and levy of duty. The proceedings culminated in imposition of duty to the extent of Rs. 48,500/-, interest at the rate of 1.5% on the said amount till the date of recovery of the entire amount and penalty to the tune of Rs. 26,500/-. Aggrieved by the action of Revenue, the petitioner has instituted the instant writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Harshita Raghuvanshi contends that proceedings under the Stamp Act for alleged deficiency in the payment of stamp duty were instituted at the behest of certain powerful political leaders. It is contention of Ms. Harshita Raghuvanshi, learned counsel that upon such complaints an enquiry was caused to be conducted by the Deputy Registrar, Sadar, District Varanasi. A report was submitted by the Deputy Registrar, Sadar, District Varanasi, in regard to the said property on 09.02.2005. The Deputy Registrar's report returns a finding that the total covered area of the property which was comprised in the sale-deed was 4200 sq.ft. Ms. Harshita Raghuvanshi, learned counsel further contends that on the basis of the aforesaid report, proceedings were initiated under Section 47-A(3) of the Stamp Act by the Collector (Stamp). Upon institution of such proceedings the petitioner in the very first instance took an objection to the report dated 09.02.2005 submitted by the Sub Registrar. In the course of the proceeding another report was called for by the Collector (Stamps) from the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar in turn submitted the enquiry report on 17.05.2005. The report submitted by the Tehsildar by and large corroborated the recital contained in the sale-deed in regard to the total area as well as the covered area which was relevant for the purposes of assessing the stamp duty. A minor discrepancy though was pointed out in the report of the Tehsildar to the effect that the covered area of the property in fact was 2686 sq.ft. and not 2600 sq.ft. as provided in the recitals in the sale-deed. A third report was called by the Collector (Stamps) on receipt of two contradictory reports. This was a joint report submitted by both the Sub Registrar and Tehsildar on 01.07.2005. The joint report dated 01.07.2005 is a curious document and confirms correctness of both the earlier reports.;