JUDGMENT :

MANISH MATHUR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed assailing notice dated 1st January, 2010 issued under Sections 33/40 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899, order dated 31st August, 2010 passed under section 47-A/33 and order dated 30th April, 2011 passed in appeal under Section 56 of the Act.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was lessee of a shop No. 2, the lessor of which was Zila Panchayat, Barabanki on monthly rent of Rs. 187.50 per month for a period of three years. It is submitted that lease agreement was executed between the parties on 26th September, 2002 and quite belatedly thereafter notice dated 1st January, 2010 was issued to the petitioner under Section 47-A read with sections 33/40 of the Act requiring petitioner to show cause why proceedings may not initiated against him for evading stamp duty.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that upon receipt of notice, objection thereto was filed by petitioner specifically taking a plea that proceedings were barred by limitation and further that even if stamp duty was applicable, the same could have been determined only on the basis of annual rental value of the property and not the area of property in question. It has been submitted that aforesaid objections are clearly indicated in the order passed under Section 47-A and while the second objection has been clearly ignored by the assessing authority, the first issue has also been decided against petitioner on the ground that instrument in question being an instrument as envisaged under Section 2(14) of the Act would be chargeable in terms of Section 2(6) of the Act since it is a document of lease in terms of section 2(16) of the Act and therefore no time frame has been indicated in the Act for initiating the proceedings.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that orders impugned have been passed on a wrong appreciation of the provisions of Act particularly in view of proviso to section 33(5) of the Act which specifically provides that no action under Sub-Section (4) or sub-Section (5) of Section 33 can be taken after a period of four years from the date of execution of instrument. It is submitted that only saving clause is under the second proviso where action is permissible after prior permission of the State Government after a period of four years but the said proceedings are also required to be initiated before a period of eight years from the date of execution of instrument. It is thus submitted that the authorities have completely ignored the provisions of Section 33(4) and (5) of the Act and the proviso thereunder to hold that proceedings were within limitation.

6. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that document in question amounted to an instrument of lease as defined under Section 2(16) of the Act and would therefore be an instrument which is chargeable to duty in terms of Sections 2(14) and (6) of the Act. It is further submitted that since there is nothing to the contrary in the instrument of lease, stamp duty has been rightly imposed upon the petitioner being a lessee in terms of section 29(C) of the Act.

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted fact that instrument in question is that of lease executed on 26th September, 2002 on the basis of which notice dated 1st January, 2010 was issued in terms of section 47-A read with sections 33/40 of Indian Stamp Act. The order impugned under Section 47-A also records the objections taken by petitioner before the authority concerned in which objection pertaining to limitation also finds a mention. By means of impugned order dated 31st August, 2010, the objections pertaining to limitation have been rejected primarily on the ground that the document in question being a lease under Section