RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Mehta for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for State.
(2.) The writ petition has been filed against the order of Assistant Commissioner, Stamp dated 9.7.2001 imposing deficiency of stamp of Rs. 63800/- along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- upon the petitioner on the sale deed dated 2.5.1989 and the order of Commissioner dated 10.12.2003 dismissing revision of the petitioner filed against the aforesaid order.
(3.) Very short point has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner in this case that admittedly the sale deed was executed on 2.5.1989. The proceeding for deficiency of stamp according to the provisions of Section 47 A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 has been initiated on the report dated 13.8.1996. The Assistant Commissioner, Stamp allegedly made spot inspection on 13.8.1996. The petitioner put appearance before Assistant Commissioner, Stamp and raised objection that in view of Section 33 (5), 2nd proviso (added by UP Act No. 22 of 1998), of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the limitation to initiate the proceeding is 04 years. It is alleged that the permission for initiation of proceeding has been obtained by State Government on 11.5.2000. He submits that even under the 2nd proviso of Section 33 (5) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 , maximum period is 08 years during which the State Government can give permission for initiation of proceeding in the matter. He further submits that sale deed was executed on 2.5.1989 as such 08 years period has been expired on 1.5.1997 and no permission to initiate the proceeding in the matter can be granted by State Government thereafter. The proceeding is highly time barred and no order could be passed on it. So far as the dates mentioned above is concerned, it is verified from the records filed in the writ petition and has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed by State Government.;