JUDGMENT : KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. Heard Shri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. An agricultural piece of land was purchased by the petitioners alongwith others by registered sale-deed dated 13.7.2005. A reference was made by the Sub-Registrar immediately after two days, i.e. on 15.7.2005 mentioning that deficient stamp duty has been paid by the petitioners considering the location of the land transferred and, after making calculations, the Sub Registrar made following request to the Collector: 3. Therefore, the deficiency, which was worked out at the time of initiation of proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was Rs. 8,37,000/- (rupees eight lac thirty seven thousand). 4. The stamp case was registered against the petitioners being Case No. 137 of 2009, in which an order was passed by the Collector, Mahamaya Nagar on 24.12.2009 working out deficiency in payment of stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 30,11,160/- (rupees thirty lac eleven thousand one hundred sixty) alongwith penalty of Rs. 6,02,232/- (rupees six lac two thousand two hundred thirty two) total demand being Rs. 36,13,392/- (rupees thirty six lac thirteen thousand three hundred ninety two) alongwith interest at the rate of 1.5% per month from the date of execution of the instrument. 5. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order before the revisional Court and in compliance of the statutory requirements of making 1/3rd deposit, the petitioners deposited a sum of Rs. 11,17,000/- (rupees eleven lac seventeen thousand) before the revisional Court and, consequently, the impugned order dated 24.12.2009 was stayed. 6. Thereafter, the revision was dismissed by the order dated 20.4.2011, against which the petitioners alongwith other purchasers of the aforesaid sale-deed, filed Writ C No. 30971 of 2011 (Mohan Kumar Varshney and others v. State of U.P. and others), in which an interim order was passed on 25.5.2011 taking into consideration that a sum of over Rs. 11,17,000/- (rupees eleven lac seventeen thousand) had already been deposited by the petitioners and, therefore, the operation of the order impugned dated 24.12.2009 passed by Collector, Mahamaya Nagar in Case No. 137 of 2009 (State v. Smt. Vinesh Gutpa and others), as well as order dated 20.4.2011 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, was stayed. 7. 11,17,000/- (rupees eleven lac seventeen thousand) had already been deposited by the petitioners and, therefore, the operation of the order impugned dated 24.12.2009 passed by Collector, Mahamaya Nagar in Case No. 137 of 2009 (State v. Smt. Vinesh Gutpa and others), as well as order dated 20.4.2011 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, was stayed. 7. Later on, the said writ petition was allowed by this Court by order dated 15.5.2012, which is reproduced herein-below: “Heard Sri Vinod Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing counsel. Pleadings exchanged between the parties have been perused and with the consent of the parties the writ petition is being finally decided. The challenge made in the writ petition is to the order dated 24.12.2009 passed by the Collector Mahamaya Nagar and the appellate order thereto dated 20.4.2011 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the authorities could not have determined the deficiency in stamp duty in excess of the amount shown in the show-cause notice. The show-cause notice is on record. It requires the petitioner to submit explanation as to why deficiency in stamp duty of Rs. 8,37,000/- may not be determined in connection with the instrument dated 13.7.2005. It means that the authorities were themselves satisfied that there was deficiency of Rs. 8,37,000/- and not more. The petitioner as such was given opportunity only in that regard. There was no notice to the petitioner to submit reply as to why penalty of Rs. 30,11,160/- may not be imposed. The show-cause notice was never modified and no corrigendum in that regard was issued. In view of the above, determination of deficiency in excess of the amount mentioned in the notice is clearly in violation of the principles of the natural justice and cannot be sustained in law. The authorities could not have travelled beyond the show-cause notice in determining the deficiency. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 24.12.2009 passed by the Collector and 20.4.2011 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority are quashed and the matter is remanded to the Collector for determining the deficiency afresh keeping in view the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed.” 8. This Court, while allowing the writ petition, clearly observed that initial notice raised a demand of Rs. The writ petition is allowed.” 8. This Court, while allowing the writ petition, clearly observed that initial notice raised a demand of Rs. 8,37,000/- (rupees eight lac thirty seven thousand) only and, therefore, once the authorities were themselves satisfied that there was deficiency of Rs. 8,37,000/- (rupees eight lac thirty seven thousand) and not more than that the levy over and above was not just and proper. 9. This Court remanded the matter to the Collector for determining the deficiency afresh keeping in view the show-cause notice issued to the petitioners. 10. The implication of the aforesaid order is clear to the effect that no fresh notice was required to be issued by the authorities and the decision, which was to be taken by the Collector afresh was to be taken on the basis of the notice, which was previously issued. 11. Shri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel has argued that a fresh notice was issued to the petitioners on 25.9.2013 titled as a notice under Section 33/47 of the Stamp Act, 1899 pertaining to Case No. 63 of 2013, in which the petitioners were called upon to show-cause as to why deficiency of Rs. 33,93,000/- (rupees thirty three lac ninety three thousand) be not imposed upon them. The initial three lines of the notice mentioned that the said notice was being issued in compliance of the order dated 15.5.2012 passed by this Court in Writ C No. 30971 of 2011 (Mohan Kumar Varshney and others v. State of U.P. and others). 12. The petitioners filed objections against the notice, however ignoring the same, impugned order has been passed on 27.7.2017 making calculations of the stamp duty on the basis of the spot inspection etc., and the deficiency has been worked out to be Rs. 34,86,720/- (rupees thirty four lac eighty six thousand seven hundred twenty) and after making adjustment of the previous deposit, deficiency of Rs. 33,54,520/-(rupees thirty three lac fifty four thousand five hundred twenty) alongwith interest at the rate of 1.5% per month. 13. Shri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel has mainly made following three submissions: (1) Once the initial reference disclosed the deficiency to the tune of Rs. 33,54,520/-(rupees thirty three lac fifty four thousand five hundred twenty) alongwith interest at the rate of 1.5% per month. 13. Shri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel has mainly made following three submissions: (1) Once the initial reference disclosed the deficiency to the tune of Rs. 8,37,000/- (rupees eight lac thirty seven thousand), no further levy could be imposed and in support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Triloki Nath v. State of U.P. and others, wherein this Court has clearly laid down that no levy over and above the initial notice can be asked to be deposited. (2) Once this Court in its order dated 15.5.2012 passed in Writ C No. 30971 of 2011 (Mohan Kumar Varshney and others v. State of U.P. and others) clearly directed the Collector to pass a fresh order only on the basis of show-cause notice, which was already issued to the petitioners, no fresh notice could have been issued. (3) In any case the subsequent notice dated 25.9.2013, which ultimately culminated into passing of the orders impugned was barred by limitation as per Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act. 14. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has argued that initial reference was only a reference and, thereafter, once proceedings were held, it was found that the initial demand of Rs. 8,37,000/- (rupees eight lac thirty seven thousand) was incorrectly made and, the stamp duty should have been paid as per the prevailing circle rate. He, therefore, submits that initial notice cannot form the basis of subsequent proceedings. 15. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I find that this Court never directed the authorities to issue a fresh notice pursuant to the order dated 15.5.2012. In any case, if notice was to be issued, it should have confined itself towards the initial demand of Rs. 8,37,000/- (rupees eight lac thirty seven thousand) only and it was on that basis that the Collector was obliged to pass a fresh order to conclude the proceedings. However, in the present case, the impugned orders have been passed based upon a fresh notice dated 25.9.2013 registered as Case No. 63 of 2013 and, therefore, the notice was contrary to the directions issued by this Court. 16. However, in the present case, the impugned orders have been passed based upon a fresh notice dated 25.9.2013 registered as Case No. 63 of 2013 and, therefore, the notice was contrary to the directions issued by this Court. 16. I also find that action can be taken under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act within a period of four years from the date of registration of any instrument. However, the period of four years can be extended for a further period of four years with the prior permission of the State Government. 17. For a ready reference, Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 alongwith its proviso is quoted herein-below: “47-A. Under - valuation of the instrument: (1).......... (2).......... (3) 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 authorized by the State Government 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) 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 for of such instrument, and the duty payable thereon, and if after such examination he has reason to believe that market value of such property has not been truly set forth in such instrument, he may determine the market value of such property and the duty payable thereon: Provided that, with the prior permission of the State Government, an action under this sub-section may be taken after a period of four years but before a period of eight years from the date of registration of the instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property.” 18. There is nothing on record to suggest that prior to issuance of notice dated 25.9.2013, the State Government had granted any permission to the stamp authorities. It appears that the authorities have proceeded to issue a fresh notice terming to be in compliance of this Court's order dated 15.5.2012, although I do not find any such direction in the order dated 15.5.2012. It appears that the authorities have proceeded to issue a fresh notice terming to be in compliance of this Court's order dated 15.5.2012, although I do not find any such direction in the order dated 15.5.2012. Therefore, apart from the fact that notice was contrary to the directions issued by this Court, it was barred by limitation as the instrument was executed on 13.7.2005 and, therefore, proceedings could not begin afresh after a period of seven years and nine months, i.e. in September, 2013. 19. I am also satisfied that once the initial demand was confined to Rs. 8,37,000/- (rupees eight lac thirty seven thousand), the matter should have been settled then and there and if not settled, then at least pursuant to the order dated 15.5.2012 passed by this Court, it should have been settled. Admittedly, by that time, a sum of Rs. 11,17,000/- (rupees eleven lac seventeen thousand) was already lying deposited with the authorities and there could be a circumstance, where the matter could be settled even for this sum, but instead of doing so, heavy deficiency has been worked out and levied upon the petitioners under the orders impugned which, for all the aforesaid reasons, cannot be sustained. 20. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 21. The order impugned dated 27.7.2017 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Hathras in Case No. 1631/2015-16 (Computerized Case No. D201318340059) (State of U.P. v. Veenesh Gutpa and others), (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed.1 22. Although, the consequence of this order would be that the amount deposited by the petitioners over and above Rs. 8,37,000/- (rupees eight lac thirty seven thousand) should be directed to be refunded to the petitioners, however keeping in view the long pendency of the matter and to settle the issue of interest etc., it is provided that whatever sum is lying deposited with the respondent-authorities, the same shall not be refunded to the petitioners and the matter of levy of stamp duty is hereby settled for a sum of Rs. 11,17,000/- (rupees eleven lac seventeen thousand).