SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) A sale-deed dated 14.6.1999 was executed in favour of the petitioner and subsequently on the report of Sub Registrar, Chandauli, that the said sale-deed was not sufficiently stamped, Case No. 193/148 under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1899') was registered in the Court of Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), District-Chandauli (hereinafter referred to as, 'A.D.M.'). The A.D.M. vide his order dated 26.4.2001 held the deficiency in stamp duty to be Rs. 24,997/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 11,499/- on the petitioner. It was also directed that in case petitioner does not deposit the aforesaid amount within time, the same shall be recovered from the petitioner alongwith an additional penalty of Rs. 5,00/- per month for the delay. The order dated 26.4.2001 passed by the A.D.M. was challenged by the petitioner before respondent No. 1, i.e., Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Varanasi Division, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as, 'Additional Commissioner') in Stamp Revision No. 71 of 2001, which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 23.6.2005. The orders dated 23.6.2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner and 26.4.2001 passed by the A.D.M. have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) The only argument that has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not liable to pay any penalty as there was no attempt on the part of the petitioner to evade payment of stamp duty and during the proceedings before the courts below the petitioner had agreed to pay the deficiency in stamp duty. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that no reasons have been given in the impugned orders for imposing penalty on the petitioner and no finding has been recorded by the A.D.M. as well as the Additional Commissioner that there was any attempt by the petitioner to evade payment of stamp duty. It has been contended that for the aforesaid reasons the orders dated 26.4.2001 and 23.6.2005 are illegal and liable to be quashed.;