JUDGMENT : SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel along with Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for the revenue. 2. Present writ petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 27.7.2017 passed by Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, in Revision No. C-20171300423 filed by the petitioner, under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order of the Collector, Rampur, dated 30.12.2016 passed in proceedings under Section 33/47 of the Act (State vs. Harbhajan Singh). The Revision Authority has dismissed the aforesaid Revision and confirmed the deficiency of stamp duty determined together with interest and, penalty imposed by the Collector, Rampur, vide his order dated 30.12.2016. Thus, deficiency of stamp duty Rs. 12,36,800/- and interest liability @ 1.5% per month together with registration fee Rs. 100/- and penalty Rs. 12,36,700/- has been confirmed, on a photocopy of the document dated 12.11.2013, described as agreement to sell. 3. The undisputed facts of the case are, the aforesaid proceedings under Section 33/47 of the Act arose against the petitioner on a complaint received by the Collector, Rampur, from one Khalid Hussain Khan and Sohail Khan, dated 28.5.2014. Therein, it was alleged, the complainants had executed an agreement to sell dated 12.11.2013 in favour of the present petitioner, for Arazi Nos. 352, 354, admeasuring 2.1450 Hectare and 0.575 Hectare respectively, for a sum of Rs. 6,17,40,000/-. 4. Acting on that complaint and a photocopy of the document dated 12.11.2013, a report dated 05.7.2014 was submitted by the Assistant Collector Stamp. On that, the Collector, Rampur issued notice (to the petitioner), dated 15.5.2015 requiring him to produce the original of the document/instrument dated 12.11.2013 before the said authority, on or before 3.6.2015. The petitioner did not produce the document but raised written objection dated 18.2.2015. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. 5. By means of that objection, the petitioner objected - the proceedings initiated by the Collector, Rampur, were without jurisdiction. He relied on the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Act and stated that the photocopy of the alleged agreement to sell dated 12.11.2013, had not been received in evidence by any Court or authority. 5. By means of that objection, the petitioner objected - the proceedings initiated by the Collector, Rampur, were without jurisdiction. He relied on the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Act and stated that the photocopy of the alleged agreement to sell dated 12.11.2013, had not been received in evidence by any Court or authority. Also, the same had not been produced and it had not come into possession of any government authority, in performance of its function. 6. By means of paragraph 6 of those objections, the petitioner further objected, the alleged photocopy of the document dated 12.11.2013 bore photocopies of signatures of only two persons out of five who may have executed/signed the original deed, if any. Therefore, there was neither any agreement to sell nor any agreement had been executed. In paragraph 6 of the objection, the petitioner further disputed that the agreement to sell had not been executed nor proven in evidence nor presented for registration. Photocopy of such incomplete document was not an instrument. Therefore, the proceedings be dropped. 7. At the same time, in paragraph 8 of the objections, the petitioner further stated, he was a victim of fraud. He had lodged a FIR against the complainants who had misled the government authorities to issue the impugned notice to the petitioner, based on a photocopy of the document allegedly dated 12.11.2013. In that, the petitioner further submitted that the complainants had been paid Rs. 30,00,000/- by the petitioner, though no transfer of property took place. 8. The Collector, Rampur, rejected the objections and determined deficiency of stamp duty (together with interest), registration fee and imposed penalty, as noted above. That order has been confirmed in Revision. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, undisputedly, no document had been filed by any party in any judicial proceedings. Such document had also not come to the hands of any competent authority in the performance of his functions. Therefore, under Section 33(1) of the Act, no jurisdiction ever arose to the Collector, Rampur, to determine deficiency of stamp duty against the petitioner. The proceedings were wholly without jurisdiction and non est. 10. He has placed reliance on a decision of the three-Judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in Hariom Agrawal vs. Prakash Chandra Malviya, (2007) 8 SCC 514 . The proceedings were wholly without jurisdiction and non est. 10. He has placed reliance on a decision of the three-Judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in Hariom Agrawal vs. Prakash Chandra Malviya, (2007) 8 SCC 514 . Reliance has also been placed on a single-Judge decision of this Court in Som Dutt Builders Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2005 All. 234 and another decision of a learned single-Judge of this Court in Smt. Prabha Juglani vs. State of U.P. through Secretary (Stamps and Registration) and Others, (2019) 2 ADJ 860 . Last, reliance has been placed on another decision of the Supreme Court in Jupudi Kesava Rao vs. Pulavarthi Venkata Subbarao, AIR 1971 SC 1070 . 11. Second, it has been submitted, photocopy of a document could never be described as an instrument under Section 2(d) of the Act. For any document to qualify as an instrument, it must necessarily be the original - that creates any right or liability, or both. A photocopy of a document can never create or confer any right or liability and it may never be read as evidence in any judicial proceeding, to assert a right or to create a liability. The entire proceedings were a nullity. 12. Third, he has also placed reliance on Uttar Pradesh (Photostat Pratiyon Ke Saath Dastavejon Ka Registrikaran) Niyamavali, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) to submit, the copies 'of any instrument' contemplated under Section 33(4) of the Act would be copies tendered with the original document for the purpose of obtaining registration and not any other photocopy. In that regard, he would further submit, unless interpreted in that manner, every person may be subjected to duty liability though the document may not be in existence. 13. Last, it has been submitted, no demand of penalty may have been raised in absence of any finding recorded by the Collector, Rampur, of any attempt to avoid payment of stamp duty. 14. The above submissions have been met by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel by placing heavy reliance on the provisions of Section 33(4) and (5) of the Act. He would submit, the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Act are wholly distinct and different from Section 33(4) of the Act. Both operate in different fact situations. 14. The above submissions have been met by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel by placing heavy reliance on the provisions of Section 33(4) and (5) of the Act. He would submit, the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Act are wholly distinct and different from Section 33(4) of the Act. Both operate in different fact situations. While one may lead to the impounding of a document and then impost of stamp duty, the second may or may not lead to impounding of the document but it may necessarily lead to recovery of stamp duty. As to the precedent relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, the same are stated to be distinguishable on facts. In Hariom Agrawal vs. Prakash Chand Malviya (supra), the issue involved was formulated by the Supreme Court in paragraph no. 6 of the report. It reads as below: “Whether the court can impound the photocopy of the instrument (document) of improper description exercising its power under the provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899?” 15. Therefore, the binding ratio of that decision emerges as to whether a photocopy of an instrument could be impounded. That question was answered in the negative. However, with reference to the duty chargeability on such photocopy of a document, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel would refer to paragraph nos. 14 and 15 of the report to submit, in the said case as well, the Supreme Court recognized the power of the State authorities to levy stamp duty based on a photocopy of a document/instrument. Parallel provision exists in the shape of Section 33(4) and (5) of the Act, as applicable in the State of U.P. 16. As to the decision of this Court in Som Dutt Builders (supra), though specific question was framed as to whether the stamp authorities had jurisdiction to initiate proceedings on a photocopy of a document and that question was answered against the revenue, however, the said decision is based on a reading of Section 33(1) of the Act only. No plea was raised by the State, in that case, relying on the provision of Section 33(4) and (5) of the Act. That question was not examined or dealt with by the Court. Thus, the binding ratio emerging from the said decision is only to the effect that no deficiency of stamp duty may be determined beyond the period of limitation prescribed. 17. That question was not examined or dealt with by the Court. Thus, the binding ratio emerging from the said decision is only to the effect that no deficiency of stamp duty may be determined beyond the period of limitation prescribed. 17. Then, to the other decision of another learned Single Judge of this Court in Smt. Prabha Juglani (supra), it has been submitted, the provisions of Sections 33(4) and (5) of the Act were not raised and not considered in the said decision. 18. Insofar as the decision of the Supreme Court in Jupudi Kesava Rao (supra) is concerned, it has been submitted, in that case again, the issue dealt with and decided was whether a photo-copy of a document could be read as secondary evidence. The said issue was answered by the Supreme Court in the negative. While dealing with that issue, it was opined - Section 35 of the Stamp Act deals with only original instruments and not their copies as may allow such copies to be read as secondary evidence. 19. As to the reliance on the Rules, it has been submitted that they have no application to proceedings under the Act. Further, the transaction being concealed, penalty was validly imposed, upon its detection. 20. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, reference may be made on the provision of Section 33 of the Act. It reads as below: “33. Examination and impounding of instruments: (1) Every person having by law or consent of parties, authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a public office, except an officer of police, before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same. (2) For that purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him, in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force in [India] when such instrument was executed or first executed: Provided that: (a) nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require any Magistrate or Judge of a Criminal Court to examine or impound, if he does not think fit so to do, any instrument coming before him in the course of any proceeding other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898). (b) in the case of a Judge of a High Court, the duty of examining and impounding any instrument under this section may be delegated to such officer as the Court appoints in this behalf. (3) For the purposes of this section, the State Government may in cases of doubt, determine what offices shall be deemed to be public offices and who shall be deemed to be persons in charge of public offices. (4) Where deficiency in stamp duty paid is noticed from the copy of any instrument, 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, call for the original instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the adequacy of the duty paid thereon, and the instrument so produced before the Collector shall be deemed to have been produced or come before him in the performance of his functions. (5) In case the instrument is de produced with in 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) or sub-section (5) shall be taken after a period of four years from the date of execution of the instrument: Provided that no action under sub-section (4) or 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.” 21. Plainly, the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Act and Section 33(4) of the Act contemplate different fact situations. Also, they provide for different consequences and procedure regarding determination of deficient stamp duty and impounding of a document. Under Section 33(1) of the Act the proceedings for determination of deficient stamp duty may arise only upon the document being received in evidence by a person in charge of public office (except police officer), or which comes before such authority in performance of its functions, if it appears (to such authority), that the instrument is not duly stamped. In that event, he may impound the document. Only after such document is thus impounded, an authenticated copy of the same may be sent to the Collector for levy of stamp duty and penalty. Thus, unless the procedure to impound a document is undertaken first and till such document is produced and impounded, no proceeding may arise to determine deficiency of stamp duty or penalty etc. 22. On the other hand, under Section 33(4) of the Act, if it comes to the notice of the Collector from a copy of instrument either suo-motu or on a reference from any Court or Commissioner of Stamp or Additional Commissioner of Stamp or Deputy Commissioner of Stamp or Assistant Commissioner of Stamp or any officer authorized by the Board on that behalf that the original of such copy is not adequately duty paid, the Collector may require the concerned to produce the original document before him. If the document is produced, the procedure of Section 33(1) would apply. 23. However, if the document is not produced, then by virtue of sub-section (5) of Section 33 of the Act, a further power is vested to the Collector to proceed to recover deficiency of stamp duty together with penalty on the copy of the instrument itself. 24. Second, under section 33(1) of the Act, the original document must first be impounded where after the deficiency of stamp duty may be determined on such document upon its authenticated copy, under Section 38 of the Act. 24. Second, under section 33(1) of the Act, the original document must first be impounded where after the deficiency of stamp duty may be determined on such document upon its authenticated copy, under Section 38 of the Act. However, no such action is required when the Collector proceeds under Section 33(4) read with Section 34(5) of the Act. 25. In that event, the pre-condition for recovery of deficient stamp duty and penalty is the notice requiring the person concerned to produce the original document. If the person produces the original document, the proceedings would arise on the authenticated copy of the original document. However, by virtue of Section 33(5) of the Act, the Collector is empowered to act on the photocopy of the instrument in his possession, in the event, the concerned refuses or fails to produce the original document. 26. The only other difference that exists in the powers vested under Section 33(1) of the Act and 33(4) of the Act is-while power under Section 33(4) of the Act, may be exercised both, upon reference or suo-motu, by the Collector, upon coming into possession of a photocopy of an instrument, in contrast, under Section 33(1) of the Act, the Collector may act only upon the authenticated copy of the document impounded being sent to him by the competent authority (after impounding the original), and not in any other manner. 27. In Girjesh Kumar Srivastava and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1998 All. 237 , a Special Bench of three Judges of this Court made the following discussion while dealing with cases of limitation and if penalty could be imposed in proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act, upon satisfaction of value of property being not truly set-forth: “Section 40 gives power of the Collector-regarding the instrument which have been impounded. It provides that if he is of the opinion that the instrument is duly stamped or is not chargeable with duty he shall certify the same by making an appropriate endorsement to that effect. It provides that if he is of the opinion that the instrument is duly stamped or is not chargeable with duty he shall certify the same by making an appropriate endorsement to that effect. However if he is of the opinion that such instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped, he shall require the payment of proper duty or the amount required to make up the same, together with a penalty of five rupees or if he thinks fit a amount not exceeding ten times of the amount of proper duty or of the deficient portion thereof, Sub-Sections (4) and (5) of Section 33 lay down that if deficiency in stamp duty is noticed from the copy of any instrument, the Collector may suo-motu or on a reference from any Court or from any one of the authorities mentioned in sub-section, call for the original instrument for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the adequacy of the duty paid thereon and if the instrument is not produced he may require payment of deficit stamp duty together with penalty under Section 40 on the copy of instrument. The sections referred to above would show that the Legislature has made a specific provision for payment of penalty in addition to deficiency in stamp duty wherever such a deficiency is noticed from the instrument itself or a copy thereof.” (Emphasis supplied) 28. Then, a division bench of this Court in Kanhaiya Prasad vs. Assistant Collector, First Class/S.D.M. Banda and Another, (1999) 90 RD 107 considered the Special Bench decision in Girjesh Kumar Srivastava (supra) and observed as below: “Sub-Sections (4) and (5) of Section 33 lay down that if deficiency in stamp duty is noticed from the copy of any instrument, the Collector may suo-motu or on a reference from Court or from any one of the authorities mentioned in sub-section, call for the original instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the adequacy of the duty paid thereon and if the instrument is not produced, he may require payment of deficit stamp duty together with penalty under Section 40 on the copy of the instrument. The sections referred to above would show that the Legislature has made a specific provision for payment of penalty in addition to deficiency in stamp duty where such a deficiency is noticed from the instrument itself or a copy thereof. The sections referred to above would show that the Legislature has made a specific provision for payment of penalty in addition to deficiency in stamp duty where such a deficiency is noticed from the instrument itself or a copy thereof. Apparently the Assistant I.G. Registration informed the facts to the Collector which he came to know during his inspection of municipal records and thereafter the Collector issued notice to the petitioner.” (Emphasis supplied) 29. In Tata Teleservices Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2008) 6 All. L.J. 748, while dealing with the question of validity of Section 33(4) and (5) of the Act, a learned Single Judge of this Court made the following discussion as to the scope of power Section 33(4) and 33(5) of the Act: “Sub-Sections (4) and (5) of Section 33 of the Stamp Act introduced by the U.P. Amendment do not contain any such power as was contained in Section 73 of the Andhra Pradesh Act. The machinery of sub-section and (5) of Section 33 is triggered of when the deficiency in stamp duty is noticed from a copy of the instrument. There is nothing in these provisions to indicate that the Collector can compel the production of the copy or of the original instrument. The situation in which the Collector can call for the production of the original instrument is specifically provided for under sub-section (4). It is when the deficiency in stamp duty paid is noticed from the copy of an instrument. The power thus can be exercised only when the deficiency of stamp duty in the original instrument is noticed from its copy. The purpose for which the instrument is being called for has also been specifically provided for in sub-section (4) as satisfaction of the Collector as to the adequacy of the duty paid. It is evident from sub-section (5) that the Collector has to provide time to the party concerned to produce the instrument and it is only on the non-production of the original instrument within the time granted by the Collector that he can take the copy of the instrument as the basis for determining the stamp duty and requiring its payment. The two provisos of sub-section also provide a time limit within which the action under Section 33(4) and 33(5) can be taken. The two provisos of sub-section also provide a time limit within which the action under Section 33(4) and 33(5) can be taken. Sub-Sections (4) and (5) of Section 33 do not contain any such drastic power empowering the Collector to seize or search any document. The reasons given by the Apex Court for holding the amended Section 73 as applicable to Andhra Pradesh as ultra-vires the Constitution do not apply to the U.P. Amendment contained in Sub-Section (4) and (5) of Section 33. In District Registrar vs. Canara Bank, (2005) 1 SCC 496 : AIR 2005 SC 186 , the Apex Court had found that the drasticity and stringency of the power under Section 73-A of the Andhra Amendment was not proportional to the purpose to be achieved. The Apex Court has specifically noticed this aspect in paragraphs 43, 55 and 58 of the Reports quoted above. The Apex Court also found that the production of documents envisaged in Sections 31 and 33 of the Indian Stamp Act is voluntary and unless the party concerned had itself produced the document in the case of Section 31 for obtaining opinion of the Collector as to chargeability of the instrument to duty and its quantum and in the case of Section 33 for the purpose of being tendered in evidence or its coming in the hands of the authority in the course of performance of his duty the Collector could not impose any duty by compelling the production of the document. The impact of the Andhra Amendment was noticed in contrast to these provisions and it was found that the power of inspection contained therein was drastic and such drasticity was not proportional to the purpose which it could be expected to achieve. Section 33 however has been amended in U.P. and it has been provided that if as a consequence of a direction by the Collector to produce the original instrument the instrument is so produced, the same shall be deemed to have come in the hands of the Collector in the performance of his duty. The U.P. Amendment introducing Sub-Sections (4) and (5) of Section 33 does not give any power to compel the production of the copy of the instrument or the original instrument. Sub-Sections (4) and (5) of Section 33 do not invade the right to privacy. The U.P. Amendment introducing Sub-Sections (4) and (5) of Section 33 does not give any power to compel the production of the copy of the instrument or the original instrument. Sub-Sections (4) and (5) of Section 33 do not invade the right to privacy. Section 73 of the Indian Stamp Act has also been amended and the new provisions of Section 73-A introduced in the State of U.P. do not suffer from the vice of drasticity from which the Andhra Pradesh Amendment suffered. Indeed the petitioner has not challenged the validity of Section 73-A substituted in the State of U.P. The U.P. Amendment has provided safeguards against the arbitrary exercise of the powers of search and seizure and such power can be exercised only in a situation where the Collector has reason to believe that any instrument chargeable with duty has not been charged at all or has been incorrectly charged. It is, however, not necessary to examine the validity of Section 73-A as the same has not been challenged. I have already held that sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 33 relate to the recovery of deficient stamp duty upon the original instrument and that stamp duty is merely paid upon the copy for the reason that the original not being available the copy is made the basis for calculation of duty. The cases cited above therefore have no application. I have already held that the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 33 are supplementary to the other provisions. There does not appear to be any merit in the petitioner's contention that Sections 33(4) and (5) are unworkable for the reason that these provisions do not determine the person who would be liable to pay stamp duty on the copy. The determination of person who is liable to pay duty is governed by Section 29 of the Act. The said provision would be applicable even where the provisions of Sections (4) and (5) of Section 33 are invoked because the duty which is being sought to be recovered under these provisions is the deficient duty on the original instrument.” (Emphasis supplied) 30. The said provision would be applicable even where the provisions of Sections (4) and (5) of Section 33 are invoked because the duty which is being sought to be recovered under these provisions is the deficient duty on the original instrument.” (Emphasis supplied) 30. Last, in Aegis BPO Service Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2010) 9 ADJ 237 , another learned single-Judge of this Court made the following pertinent discussion as to the powers under Section 33(4) and 33(5) of the Act: “The aforesaid provisions enable the Collector on noticing deficiency in stamp duty from the copy of the instrument to take suo-motu action or on a reference from any Court or from Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or any other officer authorized by the Board of Revenue and to call for the original instrument for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the adequacy of the stamp duty paid and in case the instrument is not produced to proceed to determine the deficiency together with penalty on the copy of the instrument. In the case at hand, there is no dispute that the copy of the instrument was on record of the U.P. Trade Tax Department. It was examined by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) in exercise of powers under Section 73 of the Act and thereupon on being satisfied that proper stamp duty has not been paid on it, he had made a reference to the Collector under Section 33(4) whereupon Collector had called upon the petitioner to submit the original instrument. The petitioner having failed to produce the original, the Collector proceeded to determine the deficiency on the basis of the copy of the instrument as provided under Section 33(5) of the Act. In such a situation, no error of jurisdiction has been committed by the Collector in passing the impugned order.” (Emphasis supplied) 31. Looked in that light, the decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help. In Hariom Agrawal (supra), plainly, the issue was entirely different and confined to the power of the stamp authorities to impound a photocopy of an instrument. To the extent, the only submission that may find acceptance here is, the stamp authorities have erred in impounding the photocopy of the instrument, as no such power exists under the Act. Other than that, the said decision is of no help to the petitioner. To the extent, the only submission that may find acceptance here is, the stamp authorities have erred in impounding the photocopy of the instrument, as no such power exists under the Act. Other than that, the said decision is of no help to the petitioner. Rather, the reasoning contained in paragraph nos. 18 and 19 of the said report runs contrary to the case being set up by the petitioner. Relevant to our discussion, paragraph nos. 18 and 19 of the said report are extracted below: “18. Section 48-B is a provision applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh which was inserted by the Stamp (M.P. Amendment) Act, 1990 (24 of 1990) in Chapter IV under heading “Instrument not duly stamped” of the Act. This section reads as under: “48-B. Original instrument to be produced before the Collector in case of deficiency - Where the deficiency of stamp duty is noticed from a copy of any instrument, the Collector may, by order, require the production of original instrument from a person in possession or in custody of the original instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the adequacy of amount of duty paid thereon. If the original instrument is not produced before him within the period specified in the order, it shall be presumed that the original document is not duly stamped and the Collector may proceed in the manner provided in this Chapter: Provided that no action under this section shall be taken after a period of five years from the date of execution of such instrument.” 19. On a plain reading of Section 48-B, we do not find that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that by virtue of this provision the Collector has been authorised to impound even copy of the instrument, is correct. Under this section where the deficiency of stamp duty is noticed from the copy of any instrument, the Collector may call for the original document for inspection, and on failure to produce the original instrument could presume that proper stamp duty was not paid on the original instrument and, thus, recover the same from the person concerned. Section 48-B does not relate to the instrument i.e. the original document to be presented before any person who is authorised to receive the document in evidence to be impounded on inadequacy of stamp duty found. Section 48-B does not relate to the instrument i.e. the original document to be presented before any person who is authorised to receive the document in evidence to be impounded on inadequacy of stamp duty found. The section uses the phraseology “where the deficiency of stamp duty is noticed from a copy of any instrument.” Therefore, when the deficiency of stamp duty from a copy of the instrument is noticed by the Collector, the Collector is authorised to act under this section. On deficiency of stamp duty being noticed from the copy of the instrument, the Collector would order production of original instrument from a person in possession or in custody of the original instrument. Production is required by the Collector for the purpose of satisfying himself whether adequate stamp duty had been paid on the original instrument or not. In the notice given to person in possession or in custody of original instrument, the Collector shall provide for time within which the original document is required to be produced before him. If, in spite of the notice, the original is not produced before the Collector, the Collector would draw a presumption that original document is not duly stamped and thereafter may proceed in the manner provided in Chapter IV. By virtue of the proviso, the step for recovery of adequate stamp duty on the original instrument on insufficiency of the stamp duty paid being noticed from the copy of the instrument, can only be taken within five years from the date of execution of such instrument. The words “the Collector may proceed in the manner provided in this Chapter” have reference to Section 48 of the Act. Under this section, all duties, penalties and other sums required to be paid under Chapter IV, which includes stamp duty, would be recovered by the Collector by distress and sale of the movable property of the person who has been called upon to pay the adequate stamp duty or he can implement the method of recovery of arrears of land revenue for the dues of stamp duty. By virtue of proviso to Section 48-B, the Collector's power to adjudicate upon the adequacy of stamp duty on the original instrument on the basis of copy of the instrument is restricted to the period of five years from the date of execution of the original instrument. By virtue of proviso to Section 48-B, the Collector's power to adjudicate upon the adequacy of stamp duty on the original instrument on the basis of copy of the instrument is restricted to the period of five years from the date of execution of the original instrument. This section only authorises the Collector to recover the adequate stamp duty which has been avoided at the time of execution of the original instrument. This section does not authorise the Collector to impound the copy of the instrument.” (Emphasis supplied) 32. Insofar as two decisions, both of single-Judge bench strength - in the case of Som Dutt Builders (supra) and Smt. Prabha Juglani (supra) are concerned, their ratio are distinguishable. The issue involved was different. In Som Dutt Builders (supra), the issue involved dealt with by a learned single-Judge bench of this Court were - whether proceeding under Section 33(1) of the Act could arise without impounding the original document and whether such proceeding initiated (in that case) were time barred. Those issues do not arise in this case. 33. The decision in the case of Smt. Prabha Juglani (supra) arose upon different facts. In that case, the petitioner was not visited with any prior notice under Section 33(4) of the Act, requiring her to produce the original of any particular document. Later, the stamp duty liability was imposed on the photocopy of a document purportedly executed by her. The later discussion in that judgment arises without reference to either Girjesh Kumar Srivastava (supra) or Tata Teleservices Limited (supra) or Aegis BPO Service Ltd. (supra) or Som Dutt Builders (supra). Therefore, that decision would remain confined to the facts of that case. 34. Insofar as the Jupudi Kesava Rao (supra) is concerned, the said decision was with respect to admissibility of photocopy of an instrument as secondary evidence in a suit proceeding. Referring to provisions of Section 35 and 36 of the Act, the Supreme Court opined in the negative. That ratio is plainly inapplicable to the present case. 35. In face of the law that appears clearly laid down by the Supreme Court, Special Bench, Division Bench and as applied by another learned single-Judge bench, in Aegis BPO Service Ltd. (supra), I find myself bound to apply the same. That ratio is plainly inapplicable to the present case. 35. In face of the law that appears clearly laid down by the Supreme Court, Special Bench, Division Bench and as applied by another learned single-Judge bench, in Aegis BPO Service Ltd. (supra), I find myself bound to apply the same. No reference to a larger Bench is required as it is the law laid down by the Supreme Court and larger bench strength of this Court that are binding and not any inconsistent decision by a bench of lesser bench strength, of this Court. 36. As to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the Rules, the same cannot be accepted. Undisputedly, the Rules have been framed under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 and not under the Act. The Act is a complete code in itself to provide for levies, assessment and recoveries of stamp duty on various instruments. It choses to use the word ‘copy’ under Section 33(4) of the Act specifically for the purpose of recovery of deficient stamp duty if the original is not produced in compliance of notice issued under Section 33(4) of the Act. 37. To accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner by either relying on the Rules or the situations contemplated under Section 6A of the Act, to confine the recovery of stamp duty to cases pertaining to true copies of the original document submitted for the purpose of registration etc. only, would be to unreasonably restrict the area of operation of Section 33(4) read with Section 33(5) of the Act. The recovery under those provisions arises upon adverse inference drawn due to non-production of the original. The Act allows the taxing authority to assume the existence of non-duty paid, original document (in face of refusal or failure on part of the assessee/person-chargeable-to-duty to produce original of such document) and realise the full duty and penalty imposable on the original instrument had it been produced. That being the plain import of deeming fiction of law, created solely for the purpose of recovering the deficient stamp duty and penalty, there is no warrant to curb or ignore it. 38. In the present case, the petitioner confined his objection (before the stamp authorities) to the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Act. That being the plain import of deeming fiction of law, created solely for the purpose of recovering the deficient stamp duty and penalty, there is no warrant to curb or ignore it. 38. In the present case, the petitioner confined his objection (before the stamp authorities) to the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Act. However, on plain perusal, the proceedings arose under Section 33(4) read with Section 33(5) of the Act. Mere wrong section description may never be enough to annul the recovery. It is not a jurisdictional error. The procedure prescribed under the enabling/correct law is not shown to have been violated. The order of the Collector clearly recites - upon receipt of a report dated 5.7.2014 submitted by the Assistant Collector Stamp, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.5.2015 to produce the original of the photocopy of the agreement dated 12.11.2013, by 03.6.2015. Undisputedly, the petitioner did not produce the same. 39. Therefore, there is no error in assumption of jurisdiction under Section 33(5) read with Section 40 of the Act. The petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice. That he did. However, in that reply, he confined his defence to the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Act. Insofar as the proceedings are not traceable to the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Act, the objection raised by the petitioner, to that extent, was of no avail. 40. To the other challenge, it is seen, the photocopy of the instrument, copy of which has been annexed to the affidavit of the State filed on 29.11.2018 refers to a transaction in the nature of an agreement to sell. It bears photocopy of the signatures of the persons described as vendors and vendee/petitioner. Also, photocopies of signatures of witnesses appear to exist on the same. In face of such facts, the defence set up by the petitioner making a bald denial of its execution, is unacceptable. That read together with the contents of paragraph-8 of the reply furnished by the petitioner, wherein he admitted having paid Rs. 30 Lacs to the complainant, to execute the sale with respect to the same property and the further allegation of FIR lodged by the petitioner, was enough to repel the objection as to non-execution of the original. That read together with the contents of paragraph-8 of the reply furnished by the petitioner, wherein he admitted having paid Rs. 30 Lacs to the complainant, to execute the sale with respect to the same property and the further allegation of FIR lodged by the petitioner, was enough to repel the objection as to non-execution of the original. Thus, the presumption created by the deeming fiction created by section 33(4) and 33(5) of the Act was not rebutted by the petitioner. 41. The fact that no such sale took place or the further fact that the entire consideration mentioned in the agreement to sell, may not have passed would not affect the charge and recovery of stamp duty that arose on the execution of the instrument and not on the validity/completeness of the transaction evidenced by such instrument. 42. Also, consequently, since the original was never produced, the recovery of penalty is also valid. However, as discussed above, there exists no power to impound a photocopy of any document. To that extent, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction. 43. Consequently the writ petition is party allowed. The levy of deficient stamp duty, penalty and impost of interest is sustained. The order impounding the photocopy of the agreement to sell dated 12.11.2013, is quashed. No order as to costs.