TRUSTEES OF H.C. DHANDA TRUST versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. on 17 September 2020

268

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2020] 11 S.C.R.

A

TRUSTEES OF H.C. DHANDA TRUST

v.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 3195-3196 of 2020)

BSEPTEMBER 17, 2020

[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY ANDM. R. SHAH, JJ.]

Stamp Act, 1899: s.40(1)(b) – Imposition of maximum penaltywhen instrument not duly stamped – Propriety of – In the instantCcase, a resolution was passed by the Executors/Trustees of theappellant-Trust to transfer and vest immovable properties to thebeneficiaries by executing a Deed of Transfer – However,subsequently a Deed of Assent was executed between them onpayment of stamp duty of Rs.200 whereunder the Trustees gaveDassent to complete title of the Legatees and vest absolutely in favourof beneficiaries – Collector of Stamps held the Deed of Assent asGift Deed and demanded deficit duty to the extent of Rs.1.28 lakhsand also imposed ten times penalty – Board of Revenue upheld theorder of Collector – Aggrieved appellant-Trust filed writ petitionwhich was also dismissed – In the instant case, the issue is whetherEthe ten times penalty was validly imposed by the Collector of Stampsunder s.40 – Held: The statutory scheme of s.40(1)(b) vest discretionto the Collector to impose the penalty amount not exceeding tentimes – When statute transfers discretion to an authority, thediscretion is to be exercised in furtherance of objects of theFenactment – Imposition of penalty of ten times under s.40(1)(b) isneither automatic nor can it be mechanically imposed – Impositionof such extreme penalty cannot be based on the mere factum ofevasion of duty – The Collector while imposing ten times penalty inhis order gave reason that the party had not mentioned the actualnature of the document with the intention to escape the duty – NoGother reason was given either by the Collector or by the High Courtjustifying the imposition of maximum penalty of ten times – It wasnot the case of Collector that the conduct of the appellant wasdishonest or contumacious – High Court noticed that although theresolution was passed to execute the Deed of Transfer by TrusteesHbut later on they deliberately executed the deed in the name of Deed of Assent on a stamp paper of Rs.200/- - Thus, for the reason givenby the Collector as well as by the High Court that there was intentionto evade the stamp duty in describing the document as Deed ofAssent, the imposition of the penalty was called for, but in the factsand circumstances and the reasons given by the Collector, it wasnot a case of imposition of extreme penalty of ten times of deficiencyof stamp duty – In the ends of justice, penalty reduced to the extentof half i.e. five times of deficiency in the stamp duty.

Penalty: Imposition of, by public authority – Held: The purposeof penalty generally is a deterrence and not retribution – Whendiscretion is given to a public authority, such public authority shouldexercise such discretion reasonably and not in oppressive manner– The responsibility to exercise discretion in reasonable mannerlies more in cases where discretion vested by the statute is unfettered– Stamp Act, 1899 – s.40(1)(b).

Partly allowing the appeals, the Court

Conclusion

HELD: 1.1 Section 40 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 providesfor Collectors power to stamp instruments impounded. Accordingto Section 40(1)(b), if the Collector is of opinion that suchinstrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped, heshall require the payment of the proper duty or the amountrequired to make up the same, together with a penalty of the fiverupees; or, if he thinks fit, an amount not exceeding ten timesthe amount of the proper duty or of the deficient portion thereof.The statutory scheme of Section 40(1)(b) indicates that when theCollector is satisfied that instrument is not duly stamped, he shallrequire the payment of proper duty together with a penalty of thefive rupees. The relevant part of Section 40(1)(b) which falls forconsideration in these appeals is: “or, if he thinks fit, an amountnot exceeding ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficientportion thereof.” [Paras 15, 16][275-F-G; 276-D-F]

1.2 The expression “an amount not exceeding ten times”is preceded by expression “if he thinks fit”. The statutoryscheme, thus, vest the discretion to the Collector to impose thepenalty amount not exceeding ten times. Whenever statutetransfers discretion to an authority the discretion is to beexercised in furtherance of objects of the enactment. The A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Adiscretion is to be exercised not on whims or fancies rather thediscretion is to be exercised on rational basis in a fair manner.The amount of penalty not exceeding ten times is not an amountto be imposed as a matter of force. Neither imposition of penaltyof ten times under Section 40(1) (b) is automatic nor can bemechanically imposed. [Para 17][276-G; 277-A]B

1.3 Section 35 contemplates that when ten times the amountof the proper duty of or deficient portion thereof exceeds fiverupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion isrequired to be deposited. Under Section 39, Collector isempowered to refund penalty. Under Section 35(a) there is noCoption except to pay sum equal to ten times of such duty ordeficient portion but Section 39 empowers the Collector to refundany portion of the penalty in excess of five rupees which isexpressed in following words: “if he thinks fit refund any portionof the penalty in excess of five rupees which has been paid inDrespect of such instrument.” The legislative intent which is clearfrom reading of Sections 33, 35, 38 and 39 indicates that withrespect to the instrument not duly stamped, ten times penalty isnot always retained and power can be exercised under Section39 to reduce penalty in regard to that there is a statutory discretionin Collector to refund penalty. [Paras 18, 19][277-E-F, G]

E

Gangtappa and another vs. Fakkirappa (2019) 3 SCC788 : [2018] 13 SCR 603 – referred to.

2.1 The purpose of penalty generally is a deterrence andnot retribution. When a discretion is given to a public authority,Fsuch public authority should exercise such discretion reasonablyand not in oppressive manner. The responsibility to exercise thediscretion in reasonable manner lies more in cases wherediscretion vested by the statute is unfettered. Imposition of theextreme penalty i.e. ten times of the duty or deficient portionthereof cannot be based on the mere factum of evasion of duty.GThe reason such as fraud or deceit in order to deprive theRevenue or undue enrichment are relevant factors to arrive at a decision as to what should be the extent of penalty under Section40 (1) (b). [Para 21][278-G-H; 279-A]

Peteti Subba Rao vs. Anumala S. Narendra (2002) 10SCC 427 – relied on.

2.2 The Collector by imposing ten times penalty in his orderhas given the reason for imposition as “the party has notmentioned the actual nature of the document with the intentionto escape the duty”. When the Collector found intention to escapethe duty, it was the case of imposition of penalty but whether thereason given by the Collector is sufficient for imposition ofextreme penalty of ten times is the question which needs to befurther considered. No other reasons have been given either bythe Collector or by the High Court justifying the imposition ofmaximum penalty of ten times. It is not the case of Collector thatthe conduct of the appellant was dishonest or contumacious.Taking into consideration all facts and circumstances of the case,in the ends of justice, the penalty imposed is reduced to the extentof the half i.e. five times of deficiency in the stamp duty. [Paras24, 25, 26][279-F-G; 280-B-E]

Case Law Reference

[2018] 13 SCR 603referred toPara 20(2002) 10 SCC 427relied onPara 22

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3195-3196 of 2020.

From the Judgment and Order dated 04.09.2017 passed by theDivision Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indorein Writ Appeal No. 265 of 2017 and the Judgment and Order dated30.03.2017 passed by Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,Bench at Indore in Writ Petition No. 8888 of 2011.

Purushaindra Kaurav, AG, Tushar Mehta, SG, Saurabh Mishra,AAG, A.K. Chitale, Kapil Sibal, Veer Kumar Jain, Sr. Advs., Niraj Sharma,Puneet Jain, Harsh Jain, Harshit Khanduja, Ms. Christi Jain, Arjun Garg,Ms. Rati Tandon, Aakash Nandolia, Vikas Mahajan, Vinod Sharma, AnilKumar, Aakash Varma, Rishi Tiwari, Zubair Waris, Advs. for theappearing parties.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

272SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered byASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant by these appeals challenges the judgment ofBlearned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench atIndore in Writ Petition No.8888 of 2011 dated 30.03.2017 dismissing theWrit Petition of the appellant as well as the judgment dated 04.09.2017of the Division Bench dismissing the Writ Appeal filed by the appellantagainst the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Division Benchhas dismissed the writ appeal vide its judgment dated 04.09.2017 holdingCit as not maintainable.

3. Brief facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are:

Late Shri Harish Chand Dhanda, a Minister in erstwhileGovernment of Maharaja Holkar of Indore received the free gift of landDmeasuring 108,900 sq.ft. (one lac eight thousand nine hundred) situateat Yeshwant Niwas Road, Indore by Order No.58 of 22.04.1946. LateShri H.C. Dhanda got constructed in the above piece of land, a buildingknown as ‘Hotel Lantern’. Another piece of land situate at 5, RavindraNath Tagore Marg, Indore was gifted to Late Shri H.C. Dhanda by hisfather-in-law late Col. V.B. Jadhav on 05.10.1948. Late Shri H.C. DhandaEpossessed various other movable and immovable properties in the cityof Indore with which we are not concerned in the present appeals. LateShri H.C. Dhanda executed his last Will dated 26.10.2002. In his Will hementioned his movable and immovable properties apart from the abovetwo immovable properties and by his Will he created a Trust in which heFappointed his son, Yogesh Dhanda as Chairman of Trust, Shri B.J. Dave,Chartered Accountant, Indore and one Shri Chhaganlal Nagar as member.The above two immovable properties apart from other properties wereput in Trust under the aforesaid Will. All Trustees under the Will werethe executors of the Will. Shri H.C. Dhanda died on 05.07.2003.

4. A meeting of Board of Trustees was held on 06.04.2005. AGresolution was passed by Executors/Trustees to transfer and vest areaby executing a Deed of Transfer with a site plan from the trustees tobeneficiaries by registering the same. On 21.04.2005 a Deed of Assentwas executed between M/s H.C. Dhanda Trust, a private trust as onepart and Jogesh Dhanda and others as other part. By Deed of Assent H

the Trustees/Executors gave assent to complete the title of the Legateesand vest absolutely and forever in their favour both Lantern Hotel andJahaj Mahal property. A notice was issued by the Collector of Stamps,District Indore stating that in Deed of Assent dated 21.04.2005 properstamp duty has not been paid, 22.03.2007 was fixed for appearance.The notice further stated that why deficit stamp duty of Rs. 1,62,82,150/- on the document dated 21.04.2005, and ten times penalty should notbe imposed. The Trust appeared before the Collector of Stamps andfiled its objection. The Collector of Stamps passed an order dated22.09.2008 holding the Deed of Assent dated 21.04.2005 as a gift deed.The Collector held that under Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the stamp dutypayable on a gift deed would be 8% of the market value, Municipal duty1% and Janpad duty 1%. The Collector found deficit duty to the extentof Rs.1,28,09,700/- and also imposed ten times penalty i.e.Rs.12,80,97,000/-. The order called upon the Trust to deposit amount ofRs.14,09,06,700/- within thirty days. Aggrieved against the order ofCollector, Reference Application was filed by the appellant before theBoard of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior. Board of Revenue videits order dated 25.10.2011 upheld deficiency of stamp duty ofRs.1,28,09,700/- and ten times penalty of Rs.12,80,97,000/-. The ordercalled upon the Trust to deposit amount of Rs.14,09,06,700/- within thirtydays. Board of Revenue vide its order dated 25.10.2011 upheld the orderof the Collector dated 22.09.2008 and dismissed the ReferenceApplication. Challenging the order of the Board of Revenue as well asthe Collector of Stamps a Writ Petition No.8888 of 2011 was filed by theappellant in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Learned Single Judgeof the High Court vide its judgment dated 30.03.2017 dismissed the writpetition. Learned Single Judge upheld the order of the Collector by whichdeficiency in the stamp duty and ten times penalty was imposed.

5. An SLP was filed in this Court challenging the order of thelearned Single Judge by the appellant which was withdrawn by theappellant on 4.5.2017 seeking liberty to file writ appeal in the High Court.The writ appeal was filed by the appellant being Writ Appeal No.255 of2017 which has been dismissed by the Division Bench on 4.9.2017 holdingthe writ appeal as not maintainable. Aggrieved against the aforesaid twoorders these appeals have been filed by the appellant.

6. This Court by its order dated 10.11.2017 issued limited noticeto the following effect:

AB

CDEF

G

H

A

“Issue notice, returnable in six weeks, limited to the quantumof penalty that has been imposed by the Collector (Stamps).

Subject to the condition that stamp duty is paid within aperiod of one month, there shall be stay of the order qua thepenalty.”

B

7. In response to the above notice the respondents have appeared.

8. We have heard Shri A.K. Chitale, learned senior counsel, forthe appellant and Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, for theState.

C9. Shri A.K. Chitale, learned senior counsel appearing for theappellant submits that the Deed of Assent executed on 21.04.2005 isreferable to Section 331 and 332 of Indian Succession Act, 1925. ShriChitale submitted that document in question is not a Gift Deed. ShriChitale submits that the penalty imposed by the Collector of Stamps waswholly illegal. There was no dishonest conduct on the part of the appellant,DDeed of Assent was executed bona fide on which there was nodeficiency in the stamp duty. Shri Chitale submits that no reason hasbeen given by the Collector of Stamps as to why maximum penalty often times was imposed on the appellant while determining the stampduty. Shri Chitale submits that the Collector of Stamps has not exercisedEhis jurisdiction in reasonable and fair manner and imposition of ten timespenalty on the appellant deserves to be set aside.

10. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General refuting thesubmission of counsel for the appellant contends that nature of documenthaving been found to be gift the Collector has rightly determined theFdeficiency in the stamp duty and imposed ten times penalty. Shri Mehtasubmits that there was clear intention of the appellant to evade thepayment of stamp duty which clearly called for imposition of ten timespenalty. Shri Mehta referred to the order of Board of Revenue andsubmits that Board of Revenue has also upheld imposition of ten timespenalty by holding that the applicant has executed Deed of AssentGsuppressing the facts intentionally due to which there has been loss ofstamp duty. This can neither be termed as wrong nor illegal.

11. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perusedthe records.

12. Only question to be determined in these appeals is as to whetherthe imposition of ten times penalty by the Collector of Stamps underSection 40 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was validly imposed or not.

13. The Collector of Stamps vide its order dated 22.09.2008determined the nature of document dated 21.04.2005 as Gift Deed. TheCollector of Stamps in his order also proceeded to determine the marketvalue of property, Lantern Hotel situate at Yashwant Niwas Road andJahaj Mahal situate in Ravindra Nath Tagore Marg, on the market valueof both above properties stamp duty payable was determined asRs.1,28,09,900/-, stamp duty of Rs.200/- only having been paid on thedocument deficit duty was determined as Rs.1,28,09,700/-. The Collectorof Stamps by the same order also imposed ten times penalty ofRs.12,80,97,000/-.

14. Before we proceed to consider the respective submissions, itis useful to extract the order of the Collector of Stamps which containsthe discussion regarding imposition of penalty, which is as follows:

“……In the above background, the deed in question isclassified in the category of a gift deed. The total market value ofthe property in question in the position of year 2005-06 under thedocument is fixed at market value Rs.12,80,99,000/-, on whichtotal stamp duty of Rs.1,28,09,900/- is payable. Only Rs.200/-stamp duty has been paid on the document. Thus, remaining stampduty Rs.1,28,09,700/- and, since the party has not mentioned theactual nature of the document with an intention to escape theduty, therefore, under Section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899,ten times penalty Rs.12,80,97,000/- is imposed. Thus, totalRs.14,09,06,700/- shall be deposited in the treasure within 30 days.”

15. Section 40 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides for Collectorspower to stamp instruments impounded. Section 40(1) which is relevantfor the present case which is as follows:

“40. Collectors power to stamp instruments impounded. —(1) When the Collector impounds any instrument under section33, or receives any instrument sent to him under section 38, sub-section (2), not being an instrument chargeable with a duty notexceeding ten naye paise only or a bill of exchange or promissorynote, he shall adopt the following procedure: —

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A

(a) if he is of opinion that such instrument is duly stampeded oris not chargeable with duty, he shall certify by endorsementthereon that it is duly stamped, or that it is not so chargeable,as the case may be; (b) if he is of opinion that such instrument is chargeable withduty and is not duly stamped, he shall require the payment ofthe proper duty or the amount required to make up the same,together with a penalty of five rupees; or, if he thinks fit, anamount not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper dutyor of the deficient portion thereof, whether such amountexceeds or falls short of five rupees:

B

C

Provided that, when such instrument has been impoundedonly because it has been written in contravention of section 13or section 14, the Collector may, if he thinks fit, remit the wholepenalty prescribed by this section.”

D16. According to Section 40(1)(b) if the Collector is of opinionthat such instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped, heshall require the payment of the of the proper duty or the amount requiredto make up the same, together with a penalty of the five rupees; or, if hethinks fit, an amount not exceeding ten times the amount of the properduty or of the deficient portion thereof. The statutory scheme of SectionE40(1)(b) as noticed above indicates that when the Collector is satisfiedthat instrument is not duly stamped, he shall require the payment ofproper duty together with a penalty of the five rupees. The relevant partof Section 40(1)(b) which falls for consideration in these appeals is: “or,if he thinks fit, an amount not exceeding ten times the amount of the”Fproper duty or deficient portion thereof.

D

17. The amount of penalty thus can be an amount not exceedingten times. The expression “an amount not exceeding ten times” ispreceded by expression “if he thinks fit”. The statutory scheme, thus,vest the discretion to the Collector to impose the penalty amount notGexceeding ten times. Whenever statute transfers discretion to an authoritythe discretion is to be exercised in furtherance of objects of the enactment.The discretion is to be exercised not on whims or fancies rather thediscretion is to be exercised on rational basis in a fair manner. The amountof penalty not exceeding ten times is not an amount to be imposed as amatter of force. Neither imposition of penalty of ten times under Section H

TRUSTEES OF H.C. DHANDA TRUST v. STATE OF MADHYAPRADESH & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

40(1)(b) is automatic nor can be mechanically imposed. The concept ofimposition of penalty of ten times of a sum equal to ten times of theproper duty or deficiency thereof has occurred in other provisions of theAct as well. We may refer to Section 35(a) in this context is as follows:

“35. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible inevidence, etc. — No instrument chargeable with duty shall beadmitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having bylaw or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall beacted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or byany public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped :

Provided that—

(a) any such instrument shall be admitted in evidence onpayment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or,in the case of any instrument insufficiently stamped, of theamount required to make up such duty, together with apenalty of five rupees, or, when ten times the amount of theproper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five rupees,of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion; (b)…

……

…”

18. It is relevant to notice that Section 35 contemplates that whenten times the amount of the proper duty of or deficient portion thereofexceeds five rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion isrequired to be deposited. Under Section 39 Collector is empowered torefund penalty. As noticed above under Section 35(a) there is no optionexcept to pay sum equal to ten times of such duty or deficient portion butSection 39 empowers the Collector to refund any portion of the penaltyin excess of five rupees which is expressed in following words: “if hethinks fit refund any portion of the penalty in excess of five rupees whichhas been paid in respect of such instrument.”

19. The legislative intent which is clear from reading of Sections33,35,38 and 39 indicates that with respect to the instrument not dulystamped, ten times penalty is not always retained and power can beexercised under Section 39 to reduce penalty in regard to that there is astatutory discretion in Collector to refund penalty.

20. Section 39(1)(b) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 came forconsideration before this Court in Gangtappa and another vs.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AFakkirappa, 2019(3) SCC 788 (of which one of us Ashok Bhushan,J. was a member). This Court noticed the legislative scheme and heldthat the legislature has never contemplated that in all cases penalty tothe extent of ten times should be ultimately realized. In paragraph 16following has been laid down by this Court:

“16. Deputy Commissioner under Section 38 is empoweredto refund any portion of the penalty in excess of five rupees whichhas been paid in respect of such instrument. Section 38 Sub-section(1) again uses the expression “if he thinks fit”. Thus, in caseswhere penalty of 10 times has been imposed, Deputy Commissionerhas discretion to direct the refund of the penalty in facts of aparticular case. The power to refund the penalty Under Section38 clearly indicates that legislature have never contemplated thatin all cases penalty to the extent of 10 times should be ultimatelyrealised. Although the procedural part which provides forimpounding and realisation of duty and penalty does not give anydiscretion Under Section 33 for imposing any lesser penalty than10 times, however, when provision of Section 38 is read, thediscretion given to Deputy Commissioner to refund the penalty isakin to exercise of the jurisdiction Under Section 39 where whiledetermining the penalty he can impose the penalty lesser than 10times.”

B

C

D

E

20. The expression “if he thinks fit” also occurs in Section40 sub-clause (b). The same legislative scheme as occurring inSection 39 is also discernible in Section 40(b), there is no legislativeintentment that in all cases penalty to the extent of ten times theamount of proper stamp duty or deficient portion should be realised.The discretion given to Collector by use of expression “if he thinksfit” gives ample latitude to Collector to apply his mind on therelevant factors to determine the extent of penalty to be imposedfor a case where instrument is not duly stamped. Unavoidablecircumstances including the conduct of the party, his intent arethe relevant factors to come to a decision.

F

G

F

G

21. The purpose of penalty generally is a deterrence and notretribution. When a discretion is given to a public authority, such publicauthority should exercise such discretion reasonably and not in oppressivemanner. The responsibility to exercise the discretion in reasonable mannerlies more in cases where discretion vested by the statute is unfettered.HImposition of the extreme penalty i.e. ten times of the duty or deficient portion thereof cannot be based on the mere factum of evasion of duty.The reason such as fraud or deceit in order to deprive the Revenue orundue enrichment are relevant factors to arrive at a decision as to whatshould be the extent of penalty under Section 40(1)(b).

22. We may refer to judgment of this Court in Peteti Subba Raovs. Anumala S. Narendra, 2002 (10) SCC 427. This Court hadoccasion to consider in the above case provisions of Section 40 of theIndian Stamp Act, 1899. Referring to Section 40 this Court made followingobservation in paragraph 6:

“6………The Collector has the power to require the personconcerned to pay the proper duty together with a penalty amountwhich the Collector has to fix in consideration of all aspectsinvolved. The restriction imposed on the Collector in imposing thepenalty amount is that under no circumstances the penalty amountshall go beyond ten times the duty or the deficient portion thereof.That is the farthest limit which meant only in very extremesituations the penalty need be imposed up to that limit. It isunnecessary for us to say that the Collector is not required by lawto impose the maximum rate of penalty as a matter of coursewhenever an impounded document is sent to him. He has to takeinto account various aspects including the financial position of theperson concerned.”

23. This Court in the above case categorically held that it is onlyin the very extreme situation that penalty needs to be imposed to theextent of ten times.

24. The Collector by imposing ten times penalty in his order hasgiven the reason for imposition as “the party has not mentioned the actualnature of the document with the intention to escape the duty”. When theCollector found intention to escape the duty, it was the case of impositionof penalty but whether the reason given by the Collector is sufficient forimposition of extreme penalty of ten times is the question which needs tobe further considered. The High Court while considering the question ofimposition of penalty of ten times has also given almost same reason infollowing words:

“………But in the present case the complete title has beentransferred by Trust to Jogesh Dhanda and Ishan Dhanda in thename of Deed of Assent. Therefore, there was intention to evade A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe heavy stamp duty on such transaction. Therefore, the Collectorof Stamp has rightly imposed 10 times penalty which is maximumunder the Act.

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writpetition. The same is hereby dismissed.”

B

25. No other reasons have been given either by the Collector orby the High Court justifying the imposition of maximum penalty of tentimes. It is not the case of Collector that the conduct of the appellantwas dishonest or contumacious. The High Court in its judgment hasnoticed that although the resolution was passed on 06.04.2005 to executeCthe Deed of Transfer by Trustees in favour of Jogesh Dhanda and IshanDhanda, but later on they deliberately executed the deed in the name ofDeed of Assent on a stamp paper of Rs.200/-. For the reason given bythe Collector as well as by the High Court that there was intention toevade the stamp duty in describing the document as Deed of Assent theimposition of the penalty was called for but in the facts and circumstancesDand the reasons which have been given by the Collector of Stamps asnoticed above we are satisfied that this was not a case of imposition ofextreme penalty of ten times of deficiency of stamp duty. Taking intoconsideration all facts and circumstances of the case, we are of viewthat ends of justice will be served in reducing the penalty imposed to theEextent of the half i.e. five times of deficiency in the stamp duty.

26. In result the appeals are allowed the order of the Collector ofStamps dated 22.09.2008 is modified to the extent that penalty imposedof ten times of Rs.12,80,97,000/- is modified into five times penalty i.e.Rs.6,40,48,500/-. The appeals are partly allowed to the above extent.

F

Devika Gujral

Appeals partly allowed.

G

H