Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—Heard Shri Shakti Swarup Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the orders dated 27.7.2004 and 20.8.1998 arising out of the proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1899) for deficiency of stamp duty.

3. At the time of admission this Court passed the following order on 3.9.2004:

“All the respondents are represented through learned standing counsel who may file counter-affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder may be filed within one month thereafter.

List for admission after four months.

Shri S.N. Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner states that petitioner does not intend to challenge the deficiency part of the impugned order. Mr. Verma has further stated that petitioner is only questioning the penalty part of the impugned orders. It has been mentioned in para 20 that deficiency in Stamp Duty as determined by the Authorities/Courts below has already been deposited.

In view of the above the only dispute, which survives and is required to be decided in this writ petition is regarding penalty.

Accordingly until decision of the writ petition no proceedings for recovery of penalty amount shall be initiated against the petitioner.

However, it is clarified that if any amount towards deficiency is outstanding then the same shall be recovered from the petitioner.”

4. Thus the only controversy in the writ petition now remains with regard to penalty which has been imposed against the petitioner. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that 50,728.34 sq. ft. land by means of permanent lease was granted to the petitioner by the Gorakhpur Development Authority and the lease was executed on 23.2.1998. There were allegations of deficiency of stamp duty and the proceedings were initiated under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899. The petitioner has already deposited the amount of deficiency of stamp duty as per the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner recorded in the order dated 3.9.2004 of this Court.

5. Now what has to be seen is as to whether the penalty could be imposed. The order of the Deputy Commissioner, Stamps is dated 20.8.1998. Section 47-A (4) was introduced into the statute vide the U.P. Act No. 22 of 1998 w.e.f. 1.9.1998. Prior to this date the rules did not provide for imposition of penalty. Admittedly the order of the Stamp Authority has been passed on 20.8.1998 i.e. prior to coming into force of the amendment in the Rules, therefore, the penalty could not have been imposed.

6. This controversy is no longer res integra having been settled by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Girjesh Kumar Srivastava and another v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1998 All 237 (Special Bench) wherein the Full Bench has held that sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 47-A of the Act, 1899 does not provide for imposition of any penalty prior to amendment in the section introduced under the Act 22 of 1998 which came into effect from 1.9.1998. The Full Bench in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said judgement has held as under:

“5. Section 27(1) of the Act provides that the consideration (if any) and all other facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of any instrument with duty, or the amount of the duty with which it is chargeable, shall be fully and truly set forth therein. This provision came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Himalaya House Company v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, AIR 1972 SC 899 and it was held that a failure to comply with the requirements of the section is merely punishable under Section 65 of the Act and that there was no provision in the Stamp Act which empowered the authorities to make an independent enquiry of the value of the property conveyed for determining the duty chargeable. It was further held that for the purpose of Article 23, the value of consideration must be tak