SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. - (1.) Heard Sri S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned orders dated 28.02.2006 and 12.10.2006 passed by Deputy Commissioner Stamp, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur and the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur respondents No.3 and 2 respectively.
(3.) When a tenancy deed was executed on 04.01.2005 and was registered on 06.01.2005, a certain stamp duty was paid on the instrument, which was questioned by the stamp authorities and a notice was issued to the petitioner as to why the stamp duty which was being found deficient be not recovered from her as per Article 35(a)(vi) under Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1899'). The petitioner replied to the notice and explained that the lease was for a period commencing on 07.09.2004 and ending on 06.09.2033 and therefore it was for a period, which was definitely lesser than 30 years and therefore her case was covered under Article 35(a)(v) of the Schedule 1-B of the 'Act of 1899'. However, the explanation as was given by the petitioner was not considered appropriate by the Deputy Commissioner Stamp, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur. The appeal which was filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 12.10.2006.;