SUNITA AGARWAL,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
(2.) The orders dated 03.01.2002 and 17.10.2000 passed by respondent no.1 and 2; respectively, in impounding the document and imposition of deficit stamp duty are under challenge. The agreement dated 19.03.1999 was impounded by the Sub Registrar and was referred before the Collector (Stamps) under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, as is applicable in the State of U.P. The Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Saharanpur issued notices to the petitioners. An amount of rupees forty lacs was the consideration set forth in the instrument. The Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Saharanpur vide order dated 17.10.2000 has recorded that the instrument was referable to Article 5 (b-1) in Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act which had been incorporated w.e.f. 01.09.1998. As per the said provision, an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was payable as stamp duty whereas only an amount of Rs. 31,600/- had been paid towards stamp duty.
(3.) Ascertaining the fact that the instrument was insufficiently stamped, deficit stamp duty payable at the time of registration of instrument of Rs. 2,18,400/- with 2% interest was demanded from the petitioner. The order dated 17.10.2000 had been challenged in revision with the assertion that there was no justification for imposition of deficit stamp duty and penalty. The revisional authority having examined the order of the Collector and considering the plea raised by the petitioner had proceeded to dismiss the revision with the categorical finding that the insufficient stamp duty paid on the amount of compensation set forth in the instrument i.e. rupees forty lacs was an effort to evade the stamp duty and, therefore, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 87,360/- (at the rate of 2% per month) cannot be faulted with.;