Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141970 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33043 of 2017 Petitioner :- Mohd. Ahsan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashfaq Ahmed Ansari,Pavan Kumar Srivastava,Shashank Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37531 of 2017 Petitioner :- Mohd. Ahsan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashfaq Ahmed Ansari,Pavan Kumar Srivastava,Shashank Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. Heard Shri Ashfaq Ahmed Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents. Since learned counsel for the parties submit that the issues involved in these writ petitions are similar, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order. With the consent of the parties, Writ C No. 33043 of 2017 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in these writ petitions. Writ C No. 33043 of 2017 The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 18.11.2015 passed by the respondent no. 3 in Stamp Case No. T-20151117012639 as well as the impugned order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Revision No. 19/22 of 2017-18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Tehbazari Theka for the year 2014 was granted to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 65,00,000/- in respect of exhibition sponsored by the Zila Krishi Audyogik Evam Sanskritik Pradarshini, Bulandshahar. On the basis of the report of the Sahayak Maha Nirikshak Nibandhak dated 27.03.2015, proceedings under sections 33/40/47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner with regard to deficiency of stamp duty for Tahbazari Tehka for the year 2014 and a show cause notice was issued, to which the petitioner filed objection stating that the proceedings are barred by time. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 18.11.2015, the respondent no. 3 imposed deficiency of stamp duty, along with interest and penalty, against which the petitioner preferred revision, which has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 19.05.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the proceedings under sections 33/40/47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were barred by time. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed without there being any document in respect of Tehbazari Theka on record. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders and submits that the petitioner himself noted that the contract must be in writing on the revenue stamp paper, the prescribed amount of stamp duty shall be paid and the expenses will be bear by the Contractor as mentioned in clause 25 of the terms & conditions of the contract. He further submits that substantial amount has been paid to the State Government in pursuance of the contract, but due stamp duty has not been paid. Therefore, the proceedings have rightly been initiated against the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. It is nobody's case that the petitioner was awarded Tehbazari contract in respect of exhibition sponsored by the Zila Krishi Audyogik Evam Sanskritik Pradarshini, Bulandshahar. The said deed has been executed only on Rs. 100 stamp duty. Thereafter, on the basis of the report, the proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner and after due notice, the impugned orders have been passed. The only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that only on Rs. 100 stamp duty, the agreement was executed and therefore, there is no deficit of stamp duty. It is nobody's case that the petitioner was awarded the contract for organizing exhibition and substantial amount has been paid. The terms stipulated in clause 25 of the agreement is also not in dispute. Clause 25 of the agreement prescribes a condition that the contract must be in writing on revenue stamp paper and the same shall be registered after due payment of stamp duty, which shall be borne by the Contractor. Once this fact has not been disputed, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, no interference is called for by this Court in the impugned orders. The writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Amit Mishra Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad