JUDGMENT B.S. Verma, J. 1. Heard. 2. Since a common question arises in all the writ petitions, hence, these writ petitions are being decided together by this common judgment. Further, all these petitions have been filed by one single petitioner i.e. M/s. Gold Plus Glass Industry Ltd. Hence, in all such cases, it is being referred to as the petitioner. 3. These writ petitions have been filed against the impugned order dated 15.05.2007 passed by the Collector Hardwar and by Additional District Magistrate (Finance) (in short ADM (F) dated 27.11.2006 in stamp cases, as well as order of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (in short C.C.R.A.) dated 28.05.2013. 4. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these writ petitions are that the petitioner's company has purchased the land to establish Glass factory in village Thathola, Tehsil Roorkee, District Hardwar by way of different sale deeds. At the time of execution of the sale deed 2% additional stamp duty in addition to 8% was not paid which was to be paid as development charges for Avas Vikas. When the sale deeds were presented for registration before the Sub Registrar Roorkee, the same were impounded by the Sub Registrar on the ground that the 2% additional duty development charges for Avas Vikas were not paid while that was to be paid as per Government Order dated 20.08.1971 which was issued under the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 in exercise of power under Section 62 of the Act. The same is applicable in State of Uttarakhand and referred to the Collector to realize the deficit duty after making due enquiry. Thereafter the stamp cases were registered against the petitioner and notices were issued in different cases. The different cases were registered on the basis of references made by Sub Registrar, Roorkee, since the sale deeds which have been executed by the vendor in favour of the petitioner (purchaser) were under stamped. The stamp cases were not contested by filing the objection but a written consent was given by the petitioner before the Collector on 29.01.2007 to the effect that the petitioner is ready to pay the deficit stamp duty, even then the collector has ordered to pay additional 2% duty plus equal amount of penalty. 5. The stamp cases were not contested by filing the objection but a written consent was given by the petitioner before the Collector on 29.01.2007 to the effect that the petitioner is ready to pay the deficit stamp duty, even then the collector has ordered to pay additional 2% duty plus equal amount of penalty. 5. The orders of Collector and Additional District Finance, ADM (F) were challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 1784 of 2008 (M/S),Writ Petition No. 2206 of 2007 (M/S),Writ Petition No. 1778 of 2008 (M/S), Writ Petition No. 1779 of 2008 (M/S), Writ Petition No. 1780 of 2008 (M/S), Writ Petition No. 1781 of 2008 (M/S), Writ Petition No. 1782 of 2008 (M/S), Writ Petition No. 1783 of 2008 (M/S),Writ Petition No. 1785 of 2008 (M/S), Writ Petition No. 1786 of 2008 (M/S),Writ Petition No. 1807 of 2008 (M/S),Writ Petition No. 1808 of 2008 (M/S), Writ Petition No. 1809 of 2008 (M/S) and Writ Petition No. 1810 of 2008 (M/S). The cases were remitted back to the C.C.R.A. on the ground of alternate remedy and he was directed to take decision in the matter considering the following aspects. (1) He should hear entire objection of the petitioner as to the applicability of Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam on the land in question. He shall consider as to whether any other Act, Rule or order is applicable by which 2% extra stamp duty can be charged from the petitioner. (2) He may give a clear cut finding as to whether 2% extra stamp duty can be levied or not as per the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam which is presently applicable in the territory of Uttarakhand and in the land in question. (3) Whether the petitioner is liable to pay 2% extra stamp duty on the conveyance of deed or not. (4) After hearing the parties concerned, in case he arrives at a conclusion that 2% extra stamp duty is liable to be charged from the petitioner, he may pass a reasoned and speaking order in this regard. In case, he comes to the conclusion that 2% extra stamp duty could not be levied upon the petitioner, the excess amount shall be refunded to the petitioner. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible. 6. In case, he comes to the conclusion that 2% extra stamp duty could not be levied upon the petitioner, the excess amount shall be refunded to the petitioner. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible. 6. Although, the petitioner was not directed to file revision but thereafter the petitioner preferred revision before the C.C.R.A. against the order of the Collector and the impugned orders passed exparte by the ADM(F). 7. After hearing the revisions, learned Chief Controlling Revenue Authority rejected the revisions vide order dated 28.05.2013 and directed to pay 2% deficit duty alongwith penalty. Aggrieved further, these petitions have been preferred by the petitioner before this Court. 8. By perusal of the order of Collector as well as ADM (F) and C.C.R.A. two issues are to be considered by this Court whether the petitioner is liable to pay the deficit stamp duty. So far as this question is concerned 2% duty in earlier writ petitions, the notification dated 20.08.1971 which was issued by State of U.P. was also assailed but Court has not set aside the same, matter was sent to the C.C.R.A. for consideration with same direction and that order was not assailed by the petitioner before the higher court. Therefore, so far as 2% duty is concerned, this Court is also of the view on this ground, the finding of the learned Collector as well as Chief Controlling Revenue Authority cannot be interfered since petitioner has given the consent to pay the 2% additional duty. 9. The issue no. 2 whether the penalty can be imposed on the petitioner in view of the amended provision of the Act i.e. 40 (1)(b) of the Stamp Act, as amended by the State of U.P. and applicable to State of Uttarakhand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that on this issue of penalty the show cause notice was to be issued mandatory to the petitioner by the Collector. In the notice which was issued by the Collector on 08.11.2006 to pay the deficit duty on account of development charges to be paid and to appear on 05.12.2006, there is no mention of penalty to be paid. 10. Learned counsel has further contended that the consent has been given by the petitioner on 29.01.2007 before the Collector, that the petitioner is ready to pay 2% deficit duty. 10. Learned counsel has further contended that the consent has been given by the petitioner on 29.01.2007 before the Collector, that the petitioner is ready to pay 2% deficit duty. Despite of that the Collector on 15.05.2007 on the basis of consent of the petitioner ordered to pay 2% additional duty and further imposed penalty of same amount without giving any reason in the impugned order. The stamp cases wherein the A.D.M (F) passed the exparte orders, in those cases in show cause notices also there is no mention for imposing penalty and also not served on the petitioner. The A.D.M. (F) has also passed similar order, as passed by the Collector to pay additional duty 2% alongwith penalty of same amount. It is contended by the learned counsel for the parties that C.C.R.A. has not discussed the issue of penalty and without discussing the same, the order of the penalty has been affirmed by the C.C.R.A. The C.C.R.A. have considered only three points as directed by this Court in aforesaid writ petitions. (1) Applicability of U.P Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam in the State of Uttarakhand. (2) Applicability of 2% extrastamp duty as per Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam on the land in question. (3) Whether the petitioner is liable to pay 2% extra stamp duty on the conveyance deed or not? 11. So far as three points are concerned these were answered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that they have already given consent to pay 2% of the duty. Therefore, these issues were not of so much importance to be decided by the C.C.R.A. In the revision application the specific ground were taken that penalty was imposed without jurisdiction by the Collector and Additional Collector, that issue was not decided by the learned C.C.R.A. and nowhere the learned C.C.R.A. has given its findings on this issue. 12. I have perused both the orders of the Collector as well as Additional Collector and the C.C.R.A. In all the orders, no reason has been assigned whether the penalty could be imposed equal to the amount of 2% in addition. 13. 12. I have perused both the orders of the Collector as well as Additional Collector and the C.C.R.A. In all the orders, no reason has been assigned whether the penalty could be imposed equal to the amount of 2% in addition. 13. To answer this issue, the relevant provision of Section 40 (1)(b) would be useful to be considered, which reads as under: “When the Collector impounds any instrument under Section 33, or receives any instrument sent to him under Section 38, sub-section (2), not being (a receipt) or a bill of exchange or promissory note, he shall adopt the following procedure: (a)............... (b) If he is of opinion that such instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped, he shall require the payment of the proper duty or the amount required to make up the deficiency together with a penalty of an amount not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper duty or of the deficient portion thereof.” 14. This provision sub section (b) (1) of section 40 was amended by the U.P Act 22 of 1998 (w.e.f. 1.9.1998) to impose the penalty. 15. Learned Standing Counsel has contended that penalty was imposed in view of the amended provision since knowingly 2% duty was not paid. 16. The intention of the legislature to substituted clause (b) of sub section 1 of section 40 of the Act to impose penalty, in case the instrument was not duly stamped. The opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned is necessary to be given before imposing penalty. Reference of second proviso of sub section (1) is relevant for this purpose, which is quoted below:- “Provided further that no penalty shall be levied unless the party concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 17. By perusal of the notices given by the Collector as well as the ADM (F), it reveals that there is no mention for levying of the penalty because 2% additional duty was not paid. There is only mention that notices were sent to the petitioner to pay 2% additional duty on account of development charges for which, as mentioned above, he has already given consent to pay the same before the Collector. The order of the Collector to impose penalty has been passed without assigning any reason and in absence of show cause notice. There is only mention that notices were sent to the petitioner to pay 2% additional duty on account of development charges for which, as mentioned above, he has already given consent to pay the same before the Collector. The order of the Collector to impose penalty has been passed without assigning any reason and in absence of show cause notice. So far as the notices issued by the ADM is concerned, they are also of same footing. Therefore, the order passed by the Collector ADM (F) as well as C.C.R.A, so far it pertains to impose the penalty against the petitioners, are set aside, and the amount of penalty which was deposited under the impugned order by the petitioner, shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order. 18. The writ petitions are partly allowed. No order as to cost.