1. Rule. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is disposed of finally.

2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India , the petitioner challenges the legality, validity and propriety of the orders dated 26 June 2014 made by the Joint District Registrar Class I and Collector of Stamps, Pune City, Pune, order dated 5 September 2014 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Deputy Controller of Stamps Pune (Appellate Authority) and consequential orders of attachment and notice for auction of the petitioner's property, in satisfaction of the claim for deficit stamp duty and penalty (collectively referred to as impugned orders).

3. The brief facts relevant for deciding the issues raised in this petition are that on 18 October 2005 Smt. Kantabai G. Bodake and some others executed a 'development agreement' in respect of property bearing Survey No. 41, Hissa No.1B admeasuring 4400 sq. Meters situated within municipal limits of Pune (said property), constituting the petitioner as 'developer'. For the recitals and the clauses set out in the 'development agreement', it was the petitioner, who undertook to pay Smt. Kantabai Bodake and others, consideration of Rs.42 Lacs. The said 'development agreement' was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Haveli No.7 at Sr.No.8845 of 2005. Alongwith the same, Smt. Kantabai Bodake and others executed a Power of Attorney, constituting the petitioner as their true and lawful attorney. The same was also registered at Sr.No.7127 of 2005 on 17 November 2005. It is the case of the petitioner that upon said 'development agreement', stamp duty of Rs.42,000/was paid, being 1% of the consideration stated and that this was in accordance with the provisions contained in Article 5 (ga) of Schedule-I of Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (said Act). It is also the case of the petitioner that the stamp duty at the rate of 1% was paid upon stated consideration, because on the date of execution and registration of the 'development agreement', such stated consideration was more than the market value of the said property.

4. It is further the case of the petitioner that even though the instrument dated 18 October 2005 had been styled as “development agreement”, the same was in fact 'conveyance', by which Smt. Kantabai Bodake and others had conveyed of their rights, title and interest in the said property, to the petitioner. The petitioner has, however, conceded that at the time when the instrument dated 18 October 2005 was executed and registered, the stamp duty for conveyance was payable at the rate of 10% of the agreed consideration and/or market value of the said property, whichever was higher.

5. It is further the case of the petitioner that in order to leave no scope of ambiguity, Smt. Kantabai Bodake and others, executed Sale Deed dated 27 August 2008 in respect of said property. In the said instrument, it was made clear that since consideration of Rs.42 Lacs has already been paid by the petitioners and received by the vendors, there was no further consideration in the matter of execution of said Sale Deed dated 27 August 2008. The said Sale Deed was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Haveli No.17, Pune. Upon such instrument dated 27 August 2008, the petitioner however, paid stamp duty of Rs.2,10,000/- at the rate of 5% of the agreed consideration in terms of the Article 25 of Schedule-I to the said act, as it obtained in the year 2008.

6. As a matter of routine, a test check of the accounts of Assessment, Levy, Collection, Remission and Refund of Stamp Duty and registration fees maintained in the office of Sub-Registrar, Haveli No.XVII, District Pune for the year 2008 was carried out by the State State Receipt Audit Party No. V (Office of Accountant General, Audit II, Maharashtra Nagpur) from 17 February 2010 and 24 February