A second appeal against the same stamp order is not maintainable after voluntary withdrawal.

The petitioner’s registered sale deed was found deficient in stamp duty. The Collector, by order dated 18 February 2020, directed payment of the deficiency, a 100% penalty and interest.

The petitioner appealed under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, but then asked not to pursue the appeal, admitted the deficiency and sought relief from the penalty. The appeal was dismissed on that basis on 25 March 2021; the petitioner did not challenge that dismissal and paid the assessed amount in instalments, completing payment by 28 September 2021.

She filed a second appeal against the Collector’s order on 18 November 2021. After the Government issued a stamp-duty settlement scheme on 24 December 2021, she sought its benefit, including waiver of the penalty. The second appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, and she challenged that decision in this writ petition.

Whether the petitioner could maintain a second appeal under Section 56(1-A) against the same Collector’s order after withdrawing her first appeal without obtaining liberty to file afresh.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Government Order dated 24 December 2021 when her first appeal had been dismissed and the assessed amount had been paid before that Order was issued.

Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides a statutory appeal to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority against specified Collector’s orders and states that the appellate order “shall be final”; the right of appeal is statutory and subject to the terms of its grant (Vijay Prakash D. Mehta v. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay, (1988) 4 SCC 402).

The Court also relied on the principle that an appeal withdrawn after valid institution cannot ordinarily be refiled against the same order without liberty, while distinguishing M. Ramnarain Pvt. Ltd. v. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., (1983) 3 SCC 75, because that case concerned withdrawal of an incompetent appeal.

The Government Order dated 24 December 2021 applied to stamp cases, appeals and revisions instituted before its commencement that remained pending; it allowed settlement on payment of the confirmed stamp deficiency, applicable interest and a token penalty of Rs. 100 within the scheme period.

The petitioner’s first appeal was validly instituted but was dismissed at her request; she neither challenged that dismissal nor obtained permission to bring a fresh appeal. The Court therefore held that her later appeal against the same Collector’s order was not a validly instituted proceeding, and the finality contemplated by Section 56(1-A) did not permit a successive appeal in these circumstances.

Although the Government Order covered pending matters, the Collector’s proceeding and the first appeal had concluded before 24 December 2021. The only proceeding then asserted to be pending was the second appeal, which was non-est; moreover, the petitioner had paid the assessed amount by 28 September 2021.

Accordingly, she could not obtain the scheme’s benefit through that appeal or her later application to the Collector.

It dismissed the writ petition and made no order as to costs.