SURENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 30.9.2004 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), Budaun in case No. 70/2004-05 (State v. Surendra Singh) and order dated 19.8.2005 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Bareilly Division, Bareilly in appeal No. 14/2004 (Surendra Singh v. State). Vide order dated 30.9.2004, the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) has directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards stamp duty with Rs. 2,500/- penalty with one and half per cent simple interest till the date of the deposit, whereas by the subsequent order dated 19.8.2005, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

(3.) Sri Asthana has vehemently contended that the paper brought on record as annexure 1 to the counter affidavit will not fall under the definition of 'instrument', therefore, no stamp duty could be charged. He has further argued that even if it is assumed that it is an instrument, that will fall under the definition of 'licence' not lease, as has been held by the respondent. The third argument of Sri Asthana is that utmost the stamp duty could be charged under article 5(C) of Schedule 1-B, treating it to be an agreement. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon number of decisions, but heavy reliance has been placed on paragraphs 8 and 9 of C.M. Beena and another v. P.N. Ramachandra Rao, 2004 3 SCC 595 : 2004 (55) ALR 714 (SC) and judgment of this Court in M.G. Contractors and another v. Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi,2003 52 AllLR 215. Particular attention has been drawn towards paragraph 5 of the judgment.