JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Naveen Sinha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Das assisted by Sri Amit Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 2. When the State of Uttar Pradesh had incorporated the Taj Expressway Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "Authority") under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development Area Act, 1976 for the development of a project by which a six-lane 160 kms. expressway was to be laid down, the petitioner, which is a private developer, was transferred certain land, connecting NOIDA and Agra on the virgin area along the Yamuna river. When the transfer took place of the land from the Authority to the petitioner, agreements were entered into and as per the Government Order dated 27.2.2003, the agreements were executed on a stamp of Rs.100/-. The Government, to see that private enterprise was encouraged, had on 18.2.2003 issued a circular and had desired in principle that all transactions, for public projects, above the value of Rs. 750 crore were not to be stamped. In pursuance thereof when in favour of the petitioner 14 instruments were executed between 28.2.2003 and 21.7.2003, no stamp duty was paid. On 13.8.2004, however 14 separate notices for the 14 separate instruments were issued for deficiency of stamps. These can be found at Annexure-18 of the writ petition, from Page Nos. 169 to 183. The petitioner challenged these notices along with the Government Order dated 30.8.2003 which had stated in so many words that till such time as there was a gazette notification u/s 9(1)(a) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, stamp duty had to be paid on all transactions. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition basing its claim on the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. 3. The petitioner in the writ petition had stated that since the Government in principle had agreed that all private developers who were a part of the Taj Expressway Project were to be given the exemption from the depositing of the stamp duty, the Government Order dated 30.8.2003 could not be issued. The petitioner, therefore, had prayed that the notices dated 13.8.2004 be quashed and also prayed for the quashing of the Government Order dated 30.8.2003. The petitioner, therefore, had prayed that the notices dated 13.8.2004 be quashed and also prayed for the quashing of the Government Order dated 30.8.2003. In the meantime, while the writ petition was pending, the stamp authority (A.D.M. of Finance & Revenue) on 13.10.2006 passed orders upholding the demand as was made in the notices and therefore the order dated 13.10.2006 was also challenged. In the writ petition there was also a prayer for a command to the respondents that they may provide, as per the provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899, the advantages to the petitioner which were flowing out of the circulars of the Government Order dated 28.2.2003 and 10.4.2003. 4. From the record, we find that during the pendency of the writ petition by a gazette notification dated 17.11.2007 the State of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification that if there was an investment of Rs.750 crores or more and the project was in the public interest and if no remission etc. of the stamp duty had already been availed, then no stamp duty would be leviable. This Government notification which was dated 17.11.2007 was applied retrospectively and was made effective from 13.02.2003. The government notification which was gazetted on 17.11.2007 is being reproduced herein below:- "The Governor is pleased to order the publication of the following English translation of the Government notification no.K.N.5-4513(1)/11-2007- 500(22)-2003 dated November 17, 2007 for general information: No. K.N.S.5-4513(1)/11-2007-500(22)-2003 Lucknow, Dated November 17, 2007 In exercise of the powers under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Act no. 02 of 1899) as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, the Governor with a view to promoting large projects, having capital investment of Rupee 750 crores or more, is pleased to remit with effect from February 13, 2003, the stamp duty chargeable on the instruments of transfer under the said Act, executed for transfer of land in the interest of such project; Provided that,- (a) the above said remission in stamp duty on the concerned instruments shall be available in relation to the projects to which Cabinet or the subcommittee of the Cabinet on Economic Affairs, as the case may be has given approval on the recommendation of an authorized Committee constituted for the purpose under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary of the State Government. The authorized Committee, before recommending reduction in, or remission from duty, shall examine the project on the criterion that- (I) Investment of Rs. 750 crore or more is being made in the project. (II) The Project is in the public interest. (III) Any facility including remission of duty is necessary to be given by the State Government in the public interest, to make the project financially viable. (b) The Principal Secretary/Secretary of the concerned department or his representative, specially nominated for this purpose, shall certify that the capital investment in the project to which the instrument relates is of Rupees 750 crores or more and due approval has been obtained from the competent level after following the laid down procedure. A certificate to this effect will be produced at the time of registration of the instrument. (c) The said criterion shall come into force with immediate effect. But any project, in which remission or reduction has already been given prior to this notification, after taking the approval of the Cabinet or Subcommittee of the Cabinet on Economic Affairs on the recommendation of the authorized committee, need not be reviewed. (d) Any stamp duty, which has been paid on any instrument, shall not be refunded. (e) No remission of stamp duty shall be admissible to the entrepreneur or the developer of the project, on the instruments which are being executed for transfer of the land so obtained to any third party. By order, K. CHANDRAMOULI, Pramukh Sachiv." 5. Basing his arguments on the Government notification dated 17.11.2007, learned counsel for the petitioner states that now since u/s 9(1)(a) of the Stamp Act, 1899 the notification for the waving off of the stamp duty had been issued, no demand of stamp duty which was made by the notices dated 13.8.2004 could be levied. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no stamp duty had till date been paid by the petitioner. It is also submitted that as per the order dated 11.12.2006 and the order dated 23.2.2007, passed by this Court in the instant writ petition, the petitioner had not deposited any stamp duty vis-a-vis instruments executed between 28.2.2003 and 21.7.2003. Any deposit, which was made by the petitioner vide order dated 23.2.2007, was in the form of bank guarantees. For convenience the order dated 11.12.2006 and 23.2.2007 are being reproduced as under:- "11.12.2006 Steps taken within three drays. Any deposit, which was made by the petitioner vide order dated 23.2.2007, was in the form of bank guarantees. For convenience the order dated 11.12.2006 and 23.2.2007 are being reproduced as under:- "11.12.2006 Steps taken within three drays. C.A. file within three weeks. R.A. file within one week. List thereafter. The respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner." "23.2.2007 Heard Shri R.N. Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. In spite of the order dated 11.12.2006, counter affidavit has not been filed by the respondents nor the respondent no.5 has entered appearance. Today, an application for amendment has been moved wherein several orders passed by the authorities are also under challenge. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents prays for further time to file counter affidavit to the main petition as well as to the amendment application. However, he has submitted that that the Court fee paid on the amendment application is not sufficient and the petitioner be directed to deposit certain amount as he has challenged the orders passed under the Act demanding a further stamp duty. In view of the above, counter affidavit to the main petition as well as to the amendment application may be filed by the respondents within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavits to the same may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List the petition after six weeks. Meanwhile, learned counsel for the petitioner may make the deficiency of the court fee in the amendment application good. Petitioner undertakes to deposit 15 percent of the outstanding dues as per the demand through various orders challenged in the amendment application in cash and 10 percent thereof by bank guarantee within four weeks to the satisfaction of the authority concerned." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically stated that the petitioner had invested much more than Rs. 750 crores and, therefore, was eligible for the remission as was being granted by the State Government as per the gazette notification dated 17.11.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically stated that the petitioner had invested much more than Rs. 750 crores and, therefore, was eligible for the remission as was being granted by the State Government as per the gazette notification dated 17.11.2007. To establish that the petitioner was entitled for the remission under the gazette notification, the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court the communication of the Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh dated 28.11.2007 which clearly states that the petitioner had invested more than Rs.750 crores and was entitled for the waving off of the stamp duty as per the gazette notification dated 17.11.2007. The communication dated 28.11.2007 is being reproduced herein under:- ^^2- bl lEca/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd rkt ,Dlizslos ifj;kstuk dh dqy ykxr yxHkx :3200-00 djksM+ gS] tks :750-00 djksM ls vf/kd gSA mDr ifj;kstuk yksdfgr es gS vkSj ifj;kstuk dks foŸkh; :i ls thokUr cukus gsrq jkT; ljdkj }kjk dksbZ lqqfo/kk] ftlesa 'kqYd esa NwV Hkh lfEefyr gS] fn;k tkuk vko';d gSA dj ,oa fuca/ku vuqHkkx&5 dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 17-11-2007 ¼tks fnukad 13-02-2003 ls izHkkoh gS½ ds izLrj ¼x½ ds varxZr fn;s x;s izkfo/kkuks ls mDr ifj;ksTkuk vkPNkfnr gS] ftlds varxZr ifj;kstuk ds fy;s izFke pj.k esa gksus okys VjkaLTksD'ku ;Fkk&'kklu@rkt ,Dlizslos izkf/kdj.k ls eSŒ t; izdk'k b.MªLVht fyŒ ds i{k esa lM+d ,oa fodkl gsrq Hkwfe ds fy;s gLrkarfjr dh tk jgh Hkwfe fu/kkZfjr izfØ;k dk vuqlj.k djus ds i'pkr l{ke Lrj ls leqfpr vuqeksnu fnuakd 27-02-2003 dks izkIr dj fy;k x;k gSA mi;qDRk ds n`f"Vxr dj ,oa fuca/ku dh mijksDr vf/klwpuk fnukad 17-11-2007 es fn;s x;s izkfo/kkuks ds varxZr rkt ,Dlizsl os ifj;kstuk dks LVkEi 'kqYd es NwV ns; gSA^^ 7. Sri Nimai Das, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, has submitted that such amounts which had been deposited by the petitioner before the gazette notification dated 17.11.2007, could not be refunded to the petitioner. In support thereof he has read out the paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit. Since learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel heavily relied upon paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit, the same is being reproduced hereinunder:- "9. That the Government, vide notification dated 17.11.2007, remitted the stamp duty with retrospective effect, with effect from 13.2.2003 with a rider that any stamp duty which has been paid on any instrument, shall not be refunded. Since learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel heavily relied upon paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit, the same is being reproduced hereinunder:- "9. That the Government, vide notification dated 17.11.2007, remitted the stamp duty with retrospective effect, with effect from 13.2.2003 with a rider that any stamp duty which has been paid on any instrument, shall not be refunded. The petitioner, as stated above, has sought remission under the notification dated 17.11.2007 and has also paid stamp duty on the instrument in question under the direction of the Hon'ble Court during the pendency of the writ petition, the amount already paid towards the stamp duty is non-refundable in view of the specific condition of the remission of stamp duty." 8. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel also relied upon the proviso- (d) of the gazette notification dated 17.11.2007 and submitted that any stamp duty which had been paid on any instrument before the coming of the notification dated 17.11.2007 by the petitioner on its own, shall not be refunded. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that after the gazette notification dated 17.11.2007 was published in the official gazette, the stamp duty had to be charged as per the gazette notification and the gazette notification very categorically states that any transaction, which had taken place after 13.02.2003 on any investment made by any private developer on any large public project of the State of Uttar Pradesh having an investment of Rs. 750 crores or more, no stamp under the Stamp Act, 1899 would be chargeable. 10. The petitioner definitely had invested more than Rs. 750 crores as is clear from the communication of the State Government dated 28.11.2007 which has also been reproduced in this judgment. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that notices which were issued against the petitioner on 13.8.2004 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and, therefore, are being quashed. The Government Order which had given the State the authority to charge stamp duty dated 30.8.2003 vis-a-vis the petitioner is also quashed. The impugned order dated 13.10.2006, which was passed in pursuance of the notices dated 13.8.2004 also stands quashed. 11. Needless to say that all consequential recovery certificates also stand quashed. All deposits, made by the petitioner in pursuance of the interim order dated 23.2.2007, shall be returned to the petitioner and the bank guarantees shall stand discharged. 12. The impugned order dated 13.10.2006, which was passed in pursuance of the notices dated 13.8.2004 also stands quashed. 11. Needless to say that all consequential recovery certificates also stand quashed. All deposits, made by the petitioner in pursuance of the interim order dated 23.2.2007, shall be returned to the petitioner and the bank guarantees shall stand discharged. 12. For all the reasons stated above, the writ petition stands allowed.