JUDGMENT Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. 1. Heard Sri K.S. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that vacant land of house No. 57/48-A, area 506 square feet, situated at Mohalla Sonia, Varanasi was purchased by the petitioner vide sale-deed dated 30th June, 20D3. A building was constructed upon the aforesaid vacant land after its purchase. On 27th July, 2005, a spot inspection was made by the ADM (Civil Supplies) on the basis of complaint of one Sri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava. The inspection made was ex parte, in which, it was found that building has been recently constructed. The Inspecting Officer found that some portion of the building was in commercial use. On this basis, an order dated 30th July, 2005 was passed in Stamp Case No. 25/05-06 under section 47 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereafter referred to the "Act") determining valuation of the vended property as commercial one and accordingly demanding the deficit stamp duty of  Rs. 15,600/- and penalty of  Rs. 15,600/- was also imposed. 2. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 33 before Addl. Commissioner (Administration) Varanasi Division, Varanasi under section 56 of the Act, which was dismissed by an order dated 21st December, 2005. The Appellate Authority upheld the order of the ADM merely on the ground that at the time of execution of the sale-deed, the vended property had potential for commercial use. Sri K.S. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the vended property was purchased by the petitioner as a residential property, which was a vacant land. The house was un-disputedly constructed after the purchase. Merely because some portion of the house is in commercial use, stamp duty cannot be demanded on this basis. 3. Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel supposed the order passed by the authority. 4. I have carefully considered the submission of learned Counsel for the parties. 5. It is not in dispute that as on date of execution of sale-deed i.e. 30.6.2003 the vended property was a residential vacant land and house was constructed by the petitioner after it was purchased. It is also not in dispute that the vended property was purchased as a residential property. 5. It is not in dispute that as on date of execution of sale-deed i.e. 30.6.2003 the vended property was a residential vacant land and house was constructed by the petitioner after it was purchased. It is also not in dispute that the vended property was purchased as a residential property. Merely because some portion of the vended property was subsequently used for commercial purpose, the valuation of the vended property cannot be done as a commercial property. Subsequent construction of house or use of some of the portion of the house for commercial purpose shall not render the vended property as a commercial property as on the date of execution of sale-deed when undisputedly, it was purchased as a residential property and house was constructed subsequently. Both the authorities have committed manifest error of law and facts to determine the deficit stamp duty on the basis of valuation of the vended property as a commercial one. 6. Under the circumstances, the aforementioned orders passed by the authorities cannot be sustained. In result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated 21st December, 2005 passed by the Addl. Commissioner (Administration) Varanasi Division, Varanasi in Appeal No. 33 and the order dated 30th July, 2005 passed by the ADM (Civil Supplies) in Stamp Case No. 25 of 2005-06 are hereby set aside. Any amount deposited in excess of the due stamp duty, penalty or registration fee or towards interest shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith alongwith simple interest @ 8% from the date of deposit till the date of payment.