JUDGMENT : Salil Kumar Rai, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. The facts of the case are that a lease deed dated 13.8.2014 was executed in favour of the petitioner and one of the clauses in the aforesaid deed provided that the period of lease prescribed in the aforesaid deed could be extended with the consent of the parties. Stamp duty was paid by the petitioner on the said lease deed dated 13.8.2014. However, Case No. D2015143600766 of 2015 under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1899') was registered in the court of Assistant Commissioner, Stamp, District Jaunpur regarding the deficiency in payment of stamp duty in relation to the aforesaid lease deed dated 13.8.2014 and the Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 22.2.2016 held that the said document was liable to be stamped treating the same as a sale deed in view of the clause in the deed which provided that the period of lease prescribed in the deed could be extended with the consent of the parties. The aforesaid proceedings were held ex-parte against the petitioner as the petitioner did not appear before the Assistant Commissioner even though notices in the said case were served on it. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 56(1)A of the Act, 1899 (Revision No. C2016140000945 of 2016) challenging the order dated 22.2.2016 and the said revision was dismissed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, District Varanasi vide his order dated 21.5.2018. The orders dated 21.5.2018 and 22.2.2016 have been challenged in the present writ petition. 3. I have perused the records. 4. A perusal of the order dated 21.5.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, District Varanasi shows that while passing the aforesaid order, the Commissioner has not considered the merits and legality of the order dated 22.2.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner which was also challenged by the petitioner in Revision No. C2016140000945 of 2016? and has dismissed the aforesaid revision only on the ground of non-participation of the petitioner in proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner even though notices in the said case were served on it. and has dismissed the aforesaid revision only on the ground of non-participation of the petitioner in proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner even though notices in the said case were served on it. The petitioner was entitled to challenge the merits and legality of the order dated 22.2.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner even though it had not appeared and participated in the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner and as the revisional authority, the Commissioner was obliged to consider the legality and merits of the order of Assistant Commissioner. 5. On the aforesaid short point and without entering into merits of the legality of the order dated 22.2.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 21.5.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, District Varanasi is set-aside. 6. The Commissioner, Varanasi Division, District Varanasi i.e. respondent no. 2 is directed to pass fresh orders on merits in Revision No. C2016140000945 of 2016 filed by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.