JUDGMENT 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. 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 taken to be one as set forth in the conveyance deed. The effect of this decision was that in case a person did not set forth the true amount for which the transaction had taken place, the authorities had no power to recover the requisite stamp duty which was payable on the real market value. In order to meet this difficulty, large number of States in India amended the Stamp Act. The effect of this decision was that in case a person did not set forth the true amount for which the transaction had taken place, the authorities had no power to recover the requisite stamp duty which was payable on the real market value. In order to meet this difficulty, large number of States in India amended the Stamp Act. By Section 2 of U. P. Act No. XI of 1969 which came into force on 1st October, 1969, Section 47A was inserted after Section 47 in the parent act. Sub-section (I) of this section provides that if the market value of any property which is the subject of any instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property, as set forth in such Instrument is less than even the minimum value determined in accordance with any rules made under this Act the registering officer appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, shall refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. Sub-section (2) provides that if the registering officer while registering any instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property has reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject of such instrument, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. Under sub-section (3) of this section, the Collector is required to determine the market value of the property which is the subject of the instrument and the duty payable thereon. This sub-section further provides that the difference, if any, in the amount of duty shall be payable by the person liable to pay duty. Under sub-section (3) of this section, the Collector is required to determine the market value of the property which is the subject of the instrument and the duty payable thereon. This sub-section further provides that the difference, if any, in the amount of duty shall be payable by the person liable to pay duty. Sub-section (4) of Section 47 A which deals with the situation in hand reads as follows : Section 47A (4) The Collector may suo motu, or on a reference from any Court or from the Commissioner of Stamps or an Additional Commissioner of Stamps or a Deputy Commissioner of Stamps or an Assistant Commissioner of Stamps or any officer authorised by the Board of Revenue in that behalf within four years from the date of registration of any instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property not already referred to him under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject of such instrument and duty payable thereon, and if after such examination he has reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine the market value of such property and the duty payable thereon in accordance with the procedure provided for in sub-section (3). The difference, if any. In the amount of duty, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty.” Both sub-sections (3) and (4), provide for payment of difference in the amount of duty as a result of determination of the market value of the property by the Collector. The sub-sections make no reference to payment of penalty as has been done in sub-section (5) of Section 33, sub-section (1) of Section 38 and in clause (b) of Section 40(1) of the Act. The Legislative intent is very clear and it shows that if after accepting the market value of the property as given in the instrument the same is found to be deficiently stamped the person liable to pay stamp duty shall not only be liable to pay the deficiency therein but shall also be liable to pay penalty. The Legislative intent is very clear and it shows that if after accepting the market value of the property as given in the instrument the same is found to be deficiently stamped the person liable to pay stamp duty shall not only be liable to pay the deficiency therein but shall also be liable to pay penalty. However, the legislature has deliberately made a difference in a case where on the market value of the property as shown in the instrument, there is no deficiency in stamp duty but such deficiency is revealed as a result of a fresh determination of its market value by the Collector under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of Section 47A of the Act. If the Legislature wanted that in such a case also where deficiency in stamp duty has been revealed as a result of a fresh determination of market value of the property a penalty should be Imposed, a specific provision to that effect would have been made. The Stamp Act was enacted in the year 1899 and Section 47A was inserted by the U. P. Legislature seventy years later in the year 1969. The Legislature was fully aware of the fact that the Act makes provision for payment of penalty of an amount not exceeding ten times of the amount of proper duty or the deficient portion thereof. However, while enacting Section 47A, the Legislature has deliberately refrained from making any provision for payment of penalty whatsoever. The only inference which can be drawn is that while exercising power under Section 47A of the Act if the Collector, after determination of the market value of the property, comes to the conclusion that its value has not been correctly set forth in the instrument, he can only require payment of difference in the amount of duty as a result of such determination but he cannot Impose any penalty on account of the deficiency in stamp duty which may have been revealed as a result of such redetermination of market value of the property. 6. 6. This very question has been considered by a Division Bench in Kaka Singh v. Additional Collector, AIR 1986 All 107 and it was held as follows in Para 17 of the report: “We find force also in the argument of the petitioner’s learned counsel that since Section 47A does not empower the Collector to Impose penalty in the event of his finding that the market value was not truly set forth in the instrument, such an order imposing the same would be beyond Section 47A. For imposing penalty in a case like the present, power was specifically to be conferred. In the absence of a specific provision made in that respect. It is not possible to uphold the contention of the standing counsel that penalty could be imposed whenever and wherever the Collector under Section 47A finds that the value set forth was not true. Section 47A as stated above, was brought in recently to cover a case of evasion. While enacting Section 47A, the Legislature although empowered the Collector to determine the market value of the property, which is the subject of conveyance and the duty payable thereon, it did not make any provision empowering the Collector to impose penalty.” 7. The same question was again considered by another Division Bench in Jugul Kishore v. State of U.P., AIR 1992 All 194 , which after expressing agreement with the view taken in Kaka Singh (supra) held as follows in Paras 4 and 5 of the report : “From a mere glance at sub-section (4) of Section 47A it is apparent that the Collector (A.D.M. Finance in the present case) does not have any power to Impose penalty in these proceedings..... It is worthy of note that while enacting Section 47A, the Legislature did not authorise the Collector to impose any penalty. Under this provision the only power vested in the Collector was to determine the market value of the property and if he finds that the duty paid on the instrument in question is less than that payable on the correct market value of the property, he may order that the difference may be realised from the party to the Instrument.” 8. The Full Bench decided the reference and in paragraph 15 answered the question No. 1 as under: 15. Our answers to the questions referred are as follows: 1. The Full Bench decided the reference and in paragraph 15 answered the question No. 1 as under: 15. Our answers to the questions referred are as follows: 1. While exercising power under sub-section (4) of Section 47-A the Collector can determine the market value of the property and the duty payable on the instrument as a result of such determination but he has no power to impose penalty. 2. ..........................................” The legal proposition could not be disputed by the learned standing counsel. For reasons aforesaid and the law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Girjesh Kumar Srivastava (supra), the impugned order dated 20.8.1998 in so far as it imposes penalty of Rs. 9,13,843/- on the petitioner is quashed. The writ petition is partly allowed.