ORDER : Heard Shri. A. Murali, learned Advocate for petitioner, Shri. R. Subramanya, learned Additional Advocate General (AAG) and Shri. M.Vinod Kumar, learned AGA for respondent-State. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, petitioner obtained an award dated May 21, 2012 from the Arbitral Tribunal headed by Justice S. Venkataraman (Retd.) against Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ('KSRTC' for short). 3. The Arbitral Tribunal held that petitioner was entitled to receive Rs.3,51,12,209.63 ps. with interest at 12% p.a. from April 6, 2010. Accordingly, it directed KSRTC to pay Rs.4,40,65,822.63 ps. (including interest up to the date of the award) together with interest at 12% p.a. on the determined amount till the date of payment. In addition, the Tribunal also allowed petitioner's claim for Rs.2,70,48,509.94 ps. towards reimbursement of tax on works contract payable with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the Award till the date of payment. 4. KSRTC challenged the Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Arbitration Act' for short) in A.S. No.63/2012 and the same stood dismissed by judgment and order dated February 7, 2017. 5. Petitioner submitted a representation through its Advocate on March 30, 2017 enclosing a copy of the award with a request to determine and inform the Stamp duty payable on the Award to enable petitioner to pay the same. 6. By the impugned order dated August 4, 2017, the District Registrar and the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps has directed petitioner to pay stamp duty of Rs.1,09,65,400/-. Hence, this writ petition. 7. Shri. Murali, made following submissions: In its representation, petitioner has sought for determination of the Stamp duty in the hands of the District Registrar; Learned Arbitrator has directed payment of Rs.4,40,65,822.63 ps. and Rs.2,70,48,509.94 ps. Thus the total amount works out to Rs.7,11,14,332.57 ps.; Award passed under the Arbitration Act is required to be stamped under Article 11 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 ('Stamp Act' for short) and in this case, the Stamp duty is 5% of the amount; No Stamp duty is payable on the interest component; The District Registrar ought to have conveyed the Stamp duty payable by exercising powers under Section 31(1) of the Stamp Act. However, the respondent has incorrectly calculated the Stamp duty by imposing penalty under Section 39(2) which deals with the documents which are impounded. 8. However, the respondent has incorrectly calculated the Stamp duty by imposing penalty under Section 39(2) which deals with the documents which are impounded. 8. With the above submissions, he prayed for allowing this writ petition. 9. Opposing the writ petition, Shri. Subramanya, learned Addl. Advocate General submitted that once any instrument which is not duly stamped is brought before the respondent, he is duty bound to impound the same and the respondent has rightly done so. Petitioner is entitled to receive the interest as per the award. Therefore, the respondent has rightly added the interest component. Further, since the instrument was impounded, the Registrar has rightly imposed the penalty. With these submissions, he sought to justify the impugned order. 10. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 11. The operative portion of the Award is unambiguous. Learned Arbitrator has directed the KSRTC to pay money under two heads. A sum of Rs.4,40,65,822.63 ps. (which is inclusive of interest till the date of Award) is towards petitioner's claim towards Annual Maintenance Contract and Rs.2,70,48,509.94 ps. towards reimbursement of tax. The total works out to Rs.7,11,14,332.57 ps. It is the case of both petitioner as also the respondent that the chargeable Stamp duty is 5% under Article 11 of the Stamp Act. 12. The issues which need to be decided are with regard to the correct Award amount, whether interest can be added and imposition of penalty. 13. Re: Correct Award amount As recorded hereinabove, the operative portion of the Award is clear and the total amount awarded is Rs.7,11,14,332.57 ps. Unfortunately, the respondent has added the sum of Rs.3,51,12,209.63 ps. upon which KSRTC is liable to pay only the interest. 14. Re: Stamp Duty on interest Section 23 of the Stamp Act makes it clear that where interest is expressly made payable, the instrument shall not be chargeable with duty higher than that with which it would have been chargeable if there was no mention about the interest. Therefore, interest component cannot be considered while calculating the Stamp duty. 15. Re: Penalty The representation as per Annexure-E submitted on petitioner's behalf on March 30, 2017 to the District Registrar is with a specific prayer which reads as follows: "We understand that the Award needs to be stamped in accordance to Article 11 of the Stamp Act. Therefore, interest component cannot be considered while calculating the Stamp duty. 15. Re: Penalty The representation as per Annexure-E submitted on petitioner's behalf on March 30, 2017 to the District Registrar is with a specific prayer which reads as follows: "We understand that the Award needs to be stamped in accordance to Article 11 of the Stamp Act. We request that the Stamp duty payable on the Award be determined and informed to us so that we can make the necessary payments at the earliest." 16. Chapter-III of the Stamp Act deals with the procedure when a person applies to have the opinion of the Officer as to the duty chargeable on the instrument. It applies in both cases where an instrument is previously stamped or not. Under Section 31(1) of the Stamp Act, the Deputy Commissioner is required to determine the duty. The District Registrar has clearly misdirected himself by applying Section 39(2) of the Stamp Act and imposing the penalty. The said provision falls under Chapter-IV which deals with instruments not duly stamped. In this case, petitioner has sought the opinion of the Officer with regard to the duty payable and therefore, the respondent ought to have dealt the matter under Chapter-III of the Stamp Act and simply conveyed the stamp duty payable to the petitioner. 17. Learned AAG also urged the ground of alternative remedy by way of revision under Section 53A of the Stamp Act. The said submission is noted only to be rejected because revision is not an alternative remedy because, under the Karnataka Stamp Act, the revisional power can be exercised suo moto within a period of five years. Therefore, the ground of alternative remedy has no substance. 18. Further, having observed patent irregularities and recorded the aforesaid findings, no useful purpose would be served by remitting the matter to the respondent for fresh adjudication. This would not only cause further delay for petitioner to get the instrument stamped, but remittance of Stamp duty to State exchequer would also be equally delayed. 19. In view of the above, following: ORDER (a) Writ petition is allowed. (b) The impugned order dated August 4, 2017 as per Annexure-A is quashed. (c) The respondent shall calculate Stamp Duty on Rs.7,11,14,332.57 ps. at 5% and collect the same from petitioner. No costs.