JUDGMENT : SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. A sale-deed dated 14.6.1999 was executed in favour of the petitioner and subsequently on the report of Sub Registrar, Chandauli, that the said sale-deed was not sufficiently stamped, Case No. 193/148 under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1899') was registered in the Court of Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), District-Chandauli (hereinafter referred to as, 'A.D.M.'). The A.D.M. vide his order dated 26.4.2001 held the deficiency in stamp duty to be Rs. 24,997/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 11,499/- on the petitioner. It was also directed that in case petitioner does not deposit the aforesaid amount within time, the same shall be recovered from the petitioner along with an additional penalty of Rs. 5,00/- per month for the delay. The order dated 26.4.2001 passed by the A.D.M. was challenged by the petitioner before respondent No. 1, i.e., Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Varanasi Division, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as, 'Additional Commissioner') in Stamp Revision No. 71 of 2001, which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 23.6.2005. The orders dated 23.6.2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner and 26.4.2001 passed by the A.D.M. have been challenged in the present writ petition. 3. The only argument that has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not liable to pay any penalty as there was no attempt on the part of the petitioner to evade payment of stamp duty and during the proceedings before the courts below the petitioner had agreed to pay the deficiency in stamp duty. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that no reasons have been given in the impugned orders for imposing penalty on the petitioner and no finding has been recorded by the A.D.M. as well as the Additional Commissioner that there was any attempt by the petitioner to evade payment of stamp duty. It has been contended that for the aforesaid reasons the orders dated 26.4.2001 and 23.6.2005 are illegal and liable to be quashed. 4. A perusal of the order dated 23.6.2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner shows that the petitioner was ready to pay the deficiency in stamp duty. It has been contended that for the aforesaid reasons the orders dated 26.4.2001 and 23.6.2005 are illegal and liable to be quashed. 4. A perusal of the order dated 23.6.2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner shows that the petitioner was ready to pay the deficiency in stamp duty. Further, a perusal of the impugned order dated 26.4.2001 also shows that no reasons have been assigned by the A.D.M. for imposing penalty on the petitioner and no findings have been recorded by the A.D.M. that the petitioner had made any attempt to evade payment of stamp duty. It is evident from the records that the petitioner had not made any attempt to evade the payment of stamp duty. In view of the judgments of this Court in Writ-C No. 17148 of 2010 and Writ-C No. 15195 of 2012, the authorities could not have imposed any penalty on the petitioner without assigning any reasons for the same and without recording a finding that any attempt was made by the concerned person to evade payment of stamp duty or to deprive the exchequer of the rightful revenue. The relevant extracts from the judgment passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 17148 of 2010 are reproduced below :- "Now, as far as imposition of penalty is concerned, the authority below has not assigned any reason for imposing the same. There is no finding recorded that there was any attempt to evade stamp duty or to deprive the exchequer of the rightful revenue. In the absence of such a finding there appears to be no justification for imposing any penalty." 5. In view of the aforesaid judgments and the reasons given above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order dated 26.4.2001 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), District-Chandauli in Case No. 193/148 so far as it imposes penalty on the petitioner, i.e. a penalty of Rs. 11,499/- as well as additional penalty of Rs. 5,00/- per month for the delay in payment of stamp duty, are hereby quashed. 6. In case the petitioner has deposited the amount as required by interim order dated 21.12.2005 passed by this Court, the excess amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to him within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted by the petitioner before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), District-Chandauli.