Pre-deposit conditions in stamp duty revision are valid, but writ jurisdiction remains open against allegedly exorbitant demands.

A statutory pre-deposit condition attached to revisional jurisdiction is generally valid because the right of revision is creature of statute and may be regulated by legislative conditions; the challenge under Article 14 was rejected. However, the availability of a revision remedy does not automatically bar a writ petition under Article 226 where the stamp duty demand is alleged to be exorbitant, arbitrary, or based on extraneous considerations, because the High Court may still examine whether the remedy is effective in practice and whether the grievance has merit. The writ petition was therefore maintainable for reconsideration on the demand's validity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, requiring deposit of fifty percent of the recoverable amount as a condition for entertaining a revision application, is constitutionally valid. (ii) Whether the existence of a statutory revision remedy with a pre-deposit condition bars a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the demand of stamp duty is alleged to be exorbitant and arbitrary.

Issue (i): Whether the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, requiring deposit of fifty percent of the recoverable amount as a condition for entertaining a revision application, is constitutionally valid.

Analysis: The right of appeal or revision is a creature of statute and may be controlled by conditions imposed by the legislature. A pre-deposit requirement does not, by itself, make the remedy illusory or unconstitutional if it operates as a condition for invoking the revisional jurisdiction after an adjudication by the Collector. The reasoning applied to similar pre-deposit provisions sustained in earlier decisions was followed, and the challenge based on Article 14 was rejected.

Conclusion: The proviso to Section 65(1) is constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of a statutory revision remedy with a pre-deposit condition bars a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the demand of stamp duty is alleged to be exorbitant and arbitrary.

Analysis: Even where a statutory revision is available, the High Court must examine whether the valuation and resultant demand are so exorbitant as to make the revisional remedy ineffective in practice. A party is not remediless where the demand is alleged to be arbitrary or based on extraneous considerations, and the writ court can test such a grievance on merits.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable for examining whether the demand was exorbitant, and the matter required fresh consideration by the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the pre-deposit proviso failed, but the refusal to examine the writ petition on the ground of availability of revision was set aside, and the writ petition was remitted for reconsideration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory pre-deposit condition attached to revisional jurisdiction is valid, but the existence of such a remedy does not oust writ jurisdiction where the impugned fiscal demand is alleged to be arbitrary or exorbitant.

---