Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Under challenge in this writ petition is the order dated 3.3.2010 passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar in Stamp Case No. 46/2007-08, State v. M/s. Aegis BPO Services Limited, determining deficiency in stamp duty of Rs. 58,31,900/- and imposing penalty of Rs. 5,83,190/- and further directing to pay the deficiency with interest @ 1.5% per month from the date of execution of the instrument i.e. 1.7.2006 till its payment.

2. The aforesaid order passed in exercise of powers under Section 33/47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is appealable/ revisable under Section 56 of the Act but the order has been assailed directly by invoking writ jurisdiction on the allegation that it is patently without jurisdiction and the document is void on which no stamp duty is leviable.

3. Irrespective of the alternative remedy so available the Court entertained the writ petition and vide order dated 9.4.2010 granted time to the learned Standing counsel to file counter-affidavit. A counter-affidavit has been filed and though an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition without exhausting the alternative remedy has been raised but the same has not been seriously pressed for the reason that the writ petition involves only legal issues which can be decided on the basis of the affidavits exchanged between the parties.

4. In Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Laxmi Devi, (2008) 4 SCC 720, their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with the demand of deficiency of stamp duty opined that where the demand is arbitrary and exorbitant, it is always open to the party to file a writ petition challenging such a demand made under Section 47-A of the Act as it is well settled that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

5. In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Mark Mumbai and others, AIR 1999 SC 22, exceptions to rule of exhausting alternate remedy available have been spelled out and one such exception is where the order impugned is said to be without jurisdiction.

6. Accordingly, in view of the above legal position with the consent of the parties I have proceeded to hear the writ petition on merits for final disposal.

7. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are necessary to be stated first.

8. The petitioner entered into an agreement dated 1.7.2006 at Mumbai with its sister concern M/s. ESSAR Properties Limited for using part of the building situate on plot No. 5 Block A Sector 3 NOIDA having an area of 2324.10 sq. meters on rent of Rs. 13,50,000/- per month for a period of 108 months. A copy of the said agreement was on record of the U. P. Trade Tax Department. The Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) while examining the record of the Trade Tax Department came across the same and after obtaining a photocopy of it made a reference on 21.8.2007 to the District Magistrate/Collector for determining the stamp duty payable on it. The said reference was registered as case No. 46/2007-08 under Section 33/47-A of the Act and a show-cause notice dated 18.9.2007 was issued to the petitioner calling upon it to produce the original document and proof of payment of stamp duty, failing which, stamp duty shall be determined and penalty shall be imposed in accordance with law. The aforesaid notice was duly replied by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the document is void, M/S.ESSAR Properties Limited who had executed the same was neither the owner nor in possession of the aforesaid property on the relevant date and as such could not have conveyed any right in the property; it is not an instrument; in any case it cannot be treated as lease deed but a simple agreement or a license; the authority had no right to summon the same from the petitioner and to charge stamp duty. The District Magistrate/Collector repelling the above arguments vide impugned order has determined the deficiency treating it to be a document of