JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 16.4.2015 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 65 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 ('the Act') has been rejected by the Tax Board. 2. The petitioner-transferee was issued a notice under Section 47A(2) of the Act by the Collector (Stamps), Jodhpur. 3. After hearing the parties, the Collector (Stamps) by his order dated 22.5.2001 came to the conclusion that the sale deed dated 29.4.1999 was undervalued and consequently, passed the order for payment of a sum of Rs. 4,62,986/- toward deficient stamp duty along with penalty of Rs. 100/-. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue from where the same was transferred to the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer. During the pendency of the revision, notices were issued to the respondent No.2 transferor - Mukand Chand Bhansali, however, when he was not getting served, the Tax Board ordered for substituted service by way of publication of notice in the news-paper. 5. When the matter came up before the Tax Board on 16.4.2015, on noticing that notice for respondent No.2 had not been published, the revision petition filed by the petitioner itself was rejected by the Tax Board. 6. Looking to the nature of the dispute involved, learned counsel Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, Additional Government Counsel, who appears for the department was directed to accept notice on behalf of the respondents No.2 & 3. 7. A copy of the writ petition has been supplied to him and he has been heard. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after passing of the order for publication by the Tax Board, as advised, the petitioner has filed application seeking deletion of name of respondent No.2 - transferor, however, the Tax Board without dealing with the said application and merely on account of non-compliance of the direction for publication has dismissed the revision petition, which is absolutely unjustified. 9. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was granted sufficient time to comply with the directions issued by the Board and the revision petition was pending since 2001 and therefore, the Tax Board was justified in dismissing the revision petition for non-compliance of the directions issued by the Board and consequently, no interference is called for in the present writ petition. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 11. It is true that the Board has passed the order for substituted service on the transferor, which the petitioner was required to comply with, however, it is equally true that the petitioner had thereafter moved application seeking deletion of name of the respondent No.2 - transferor as party in the revision petition, which fact has been noticed by the Tax Board in the order impugned. The Tax Board without dealing with the said application and only on account of the fact that the notices had not been published, has dismissed the revision petition, which it is apparent has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. 12. It was incumbent on the Tax Board to deal with the application filed by the petitioner seeking deletion of name of the transferor and without dealing with the said application, the order impugned could not have been passed by the Tax Board. 13. In view of the fact that the order dated 22.5.2001 was passed by the Collector (Stamps) seeking recovery of the enhanced amount of stamp duty along with penalty from the petitioner and the petitioner had impleaded the transferor also as party to the revision petition, a notice was issued to the transferor also by the Collector (Stamps), once in the revision petition, the petitioner decided to delete the said transferor as party respondent in the revision petition, apparently no prejudice would be caused to the State so as to oppose the said application. 14. In view thereof, the application should have been accepted by the Tax Board. 15. 14. In view thereof, the application should have been accepted by the Tax Board. 15. In view of the fact that Tax Board has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, the order impugned dated 16.4.2015 (Annex.8) is set aside; the revision petition along with stay application is restored back before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer; the respondent No.2 in the revision petition is ordered to be deleted as party respondent and the Tax Board is directed to hear and decide the revision petition on merits as expeditiously as possible, in any case within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is placed before the Tax Board. The writ petition filed by the petitioner stands allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.