The court upheld the authority's power to impose penalty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 based on the evidence and inspection.

Salil Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 to 5.

2. The facts of the case are that a sale deed dated 30.7.2004 was executed in favour of the petitioner and stamp duty was paid on the aforesaid sale deed representing the constructions on the plot to be 50 years old. On an inspection by respondent no. 3, it was found that R.C.C. material was used in the constructions existing on the plot and therefore Case No. 154 of 2004 under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1899') was registered against the petitioner. Notices were issued to the petitioner in the aforesaid case who appeared before respondent no. 3 and contested the same. However, respondent no. 3 vide his order dated 30.11.2004 held that there was a deficiency in payment of stamp duty on the sale deed dated 30.7.2004 as R.C.C. material was used in the constructions existing on the plot and therefore the constructions could not be 50 years old and calculated the deficiency accordingly. Through his order dated 30.11.2004, respondent no. 3 also imposed penalty on the petitioner for alleged evasion in payment of stamp duty. The order dated 30.11.2004 was challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi i.e. respondent no. 5 under Section 56 of the Act, 1899 which was registered as Revision No. 7 of 2004-05 and the said revision was dismissed by respondent no. 5 vide his order dated 24.3.2005. The orders dated 24.3.2005 and 30.11.2004 have been challenged in the present writ petition.

3. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the findings recorded by the courts below that the constructions existing on the plot were not 50 years old and R.C.C. material was used in the aforesaid constructions are without any evidence and further respondent no. 3 had no power to impose penalty on the petitioner. In support of his aforesaid contention, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in Shailendra vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Commissioner, Agra Division; Deputy Commissioner (Stamps), Agra Division and State of Uttar Pradesh through Collector 2006 (101) RevDev 476.

4. A perusal of the impugned orders dated 30.11.2004 and 24.3.2005 shows that the findings recorded by respondent nos. 3 and 5 regarding constructions existing on the plot are based on evidence on record and the inspection done by respondent no. 3 himself. In view of the aforesaid, findings recorded by respondent no. 3 and upheld by respondent no. 5 regarding stamp duty liable to be paid on the sale deed dated 30.7.2004 are findings of facts and not liable to be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, the argument of counsel for the petitioner that the authorities did not have the power to impose penalty on the petitioner is also unfounded. It is evident from the records that sale deed was executed on 30.7.2004 and Case No. 154 of 2004 was registered under Section 33 of the Act, 1899. A reading of Sections 33(5), 40(1) and 47-A of the Act, 1899 shows that the Collector has the power to require payment of deficiency in stamp duty as well as penalty. The provisions of Sections 33(5), 40(1) and 47-A (4) of the Act, 1899 are reproduced hereinbelow:

"33(5) In case the instrument is not produced within the period specified by the Collector, he may require payment of deficit stamp duty, if any, together with penalty under Section 40 on the copy of the instrument:

Provided that no action under sub-section (4) of sub-section (5) shall be taken after a period of four years from the date of execution of the instrument] :

[Provided further that with the prior permission of the State Government an action under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) may be taken after a period of four years but before a period of eight years from the date of execution of the instrument].

40. Collector's power to stamp instruments impounded.-(1) When