JUDGMENT : Siddhartha Varma, J. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 30.6.2004 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) Bulandshahar, in Stamp Case No. 188 of 2003 by which a deficiency in the stamp affixed of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed, order dated 25.8.20104 by which the restoration application was dismissed and the order dated 7.1.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, by which the appeals filed against the orders dated 30.6.2004 and 25.8.2004 were dismissed. The petitioner, on 11.4.2004, received a letter/communication of the Assistant Commissioner asking him to appear on 15.4.2004. By that communication, the petitioner was also required to produce the original of a document the details of which were not mentioned. Thereafter, the petitioner replied to the communication/notice and stated that even though the petitioner had been asked to attend the office of the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp) on 15.4.2004 but there was no particular of any document etc. which was required to be brought by him. Thereafter, the petitioner did not hear anything from the office of the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp) and suddenly when on 21.8.2004, the Amin of Tehsil - Sikandarabad District- Bulandshahar, came demanding a sum of Rs. 1 lac. The petitioner visited the office of the Commissioner where he came to know about the proceedings in Stamp Case No. 188 of 2004 which had calculated a deficiency to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- vis-a-vis stamp affixed on a particular document dated 12.10.2002. The petitioner explained the reasons for her non-appearance on 30.6.2004. She also moved an application for recalling the order dated 30.6.2004 and explained the delay in approaching the Commissioner. She also stated that by the alleged document there was no transfer of any right, title or interest in any property and that the document which was a photocopy of some document was definitely not registered and, therefore, was no instrument at all in the eyes of law. This application of the petitioner was rejected on 25.8.2004 and, therefore, two appeals were filed. One against the order dated 30.6.2004 and the other against the dismissal of the recall application dated 25.8.2004 by which the restoration application was dismissed. The Appellate Authority also confirmed the orders of the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp) and, therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed. One against the order dated 30.6.2004 and the other against the dismissal of the recall application dated 25.8.2004 by which the restoration application was dismissed. The Appellate Authority also confirmed the orders of the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp) and, therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the document dated 12.10.2002 which was sought to be stamped was a photostat copy of some original document and, therefore, was not an instrument as per Section 2(14) of the Stamp Act 1899. In this regard, the petitioner relied upon AIR 1971 (SC) 1070 : Jupudi Kesava Rao v. Pulavarthi Venkata Subbarao and others and stated that the definition of the word "Instrument" does not cover the photocopy of any document. Learned counsel read out a certain portion of paragraph 13 of the judgement which is being reproduced here as under: "'Instrument' is defined in Section 2(14) as including every document by which any right or liability is, or purports to be created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded. There is no scope for inclusion of a copy of a document as an instrument for the purpose of the Stamp Act." Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the document dated 12.10.2002 could not be considered a document at all unless it was registered. Learned counsel submitted that, the particular document which was sought to be stamped, under 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, had to be compulsorily registered and since it was not registered it was a nullity in the eyes of law. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the original of the document was not found then under Section 33 of the Stamp Act, there was no power vested in any Authority to direct the production of the original document to ascertain as to whether it was properly stamped. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon 1966 ALJ 514 : R.A. Remington vs. Deputy Commissioner. Learned counsel also relied upon AIR 2005 Allahabad 234 (Som Dutt Builders Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) and submitted that when the original document had never been impounded as it was never produced before any Authority there was no question of any further adjudication and imposition of stamp duty and penalty. Learned counsel also relied upon AIR 2005 Allahabad 234 (Som Dutt Builders Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) and submitted that when the original document had never been impounded as it was never produced before any Authority there was no question of any further adjudication and imposition of stamp duty and penalty. Relying upon this very judgement, learned counsel also submitted that a photostat copy of a document was not an instrument under Section 2(14) of the Stamp Act. Learned Standing Counsel, in reply, submitted that it is not only the instrument/document which has to be stamped but it is also transaction which had to be stamped. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that when the original of the document was not produced, and when the document itself was not registered even though under Section 17 of the Registration Act it was compulsorily registerable then the whole exercise undertaken by the stamp authorities was absolutely void. So far as the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the transaction itself had to be stamped would be available to the learned Standing only if there had been in existence an instrument or a document. In the instant case, there was no document at all which could have been impounded or could have been adjudicated upon. Under such circumstances, the orders dated 7.1.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, 25.8.2004 and 30.6.2004 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) Bulanshahar, are not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore are quashed. The writ petition is allowed.