SUNANDITA SARANGI vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay

WPA 6940 of 2025

Sunandita Sarangi
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.


For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhaskar Nandi

For the State : Mr. Pantu Deb Roy
: Mr. Pannalal Bandopadhyay





Judgment on : 15.05.2026

Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-
1. The writ petitioner who is an inter State stage carriage permit owner
and plies her vehicle in between the States of Orissa and West
Bengal. Orissa is her permit issuing State and West Bengal is the
reciprocating State. She has challenged in the instant writ petition, a
letter issued by the Regional Transport Authority & Ex-Officio
Assistant Director, STA, West Bengal, dated 25th November, 2024,
addressed to the Taxing Officer with copy thereof being forwarded to
the writ petitioner.
2. The said impugned letter was issued on the subject “Payment of
Additional Tax and M.V. Tax against stage carriage permanent Permit
No. 59-R/2021 in respect of vehicle No. OD05AD/0629 (Model -
2017)”.
3. The sender writes that with respect to the permit of the writ petitioner
as mentioned above, additional tax and motor vehicle tax are to be

P a g e | 2

collected for the period from (i) 3rd June, 2021 to 2nd June 2026
(quarterly/yearly); from (ii)13th July, 2019 to 30th September, 2020;
and from (iii) 3rd June 2021 till the date of the said letter. The writ
petitioner is aggrieved about such direction of the respondent
th
Authority in the said impugned letter dated 25 September 2024,
hence challenges the same.
4. The petitioner’s grievance is that the demand by the respondent
Authority as above, amounts to be gross arbitrariness and stands
against the settled legal position in this regard. The petitioner has
enumerated the following factual background of the case in the writ
petition:
5. The permit of the petitioner was renewed by the permit issuing
Authority, with effect from 3rd June 2021, to be valid till 2nd June
2026. Consequent thereupon the State Transport Authority Orissa
writes to the Secretary, State Transport Authority West Bengal, vide
the letter dated 16th September, 2021, to countersign the renewed
permit being No. 59-R-2021.
6. Since thereafter, allegedly despite several reminders having been sent
by the petitioner herself to the said counter signing Authority, no
response has yet come from its end, by way of counter signing the
permit so renewed in favour of the writ petitioner by the permit
issuing State. Instead by virtue of the impugned letter dated 25th
November, 2024, the respondent has raised demand which the
petitioner denies and disputes as arbitrary and not maintainable.
7. According to the writ petitioner, pursuant to the demand raised vide
a communication dated 11th July 2019, she has deposited taxes in
the manner as follows:
th th
i) for the period from 12 July, 2019 to 12 July 2019 – vide Receipt
th
No. WB1R190700005898/WB1907116058261 dated 12 July, 2019

P a g e | 3

th th
ii) for the period from 12 July, 2019 to 11 October, 2019 – vide
th
Receipt No. WB1R190800009676/WB19082011337149 dated 20
August, 2019 and
th th
iii) for the period from 12 October, 2019 to 11 January, 2020 –
vide Receipt No. WB1R190900016456/WB19093027203299 dated
th
30 September, 2019.
8. Hence, the petitioner says that in view of payments made by her in
the manner as stated above, there remains no outstanding dues of
additional tax and motor vehicle tax against the petitioner’s permit
th th
for the period from 13 July, 2019 to 30 September, 2020.
According to the writ petitioner, therefore, the demand made by the
Regional Transport Officer and ex-officio Assistant Director, STA,
West Bengal vide the impugned letter is not maintainable.
9. The petitioner is represented by Mr. Bhaskar Nandi, learned
advocate. He has put forth argument principally on two-fold grounds.
Firstly, he says, in view of the materials available on record, it clearly
appears that the petitioner has already remitted tax and additional
th th
tax during the period from 13 July, 2019 to 30 September, 2020.
Therefore, claiming further tax for the said period amounts to
subjecting the writ petitioner to double jeopardy. Also that, such
double taxation is not permitted under the law.
10. Secondly, Mr. Nandi, learned advocate has submitted that by
operation of the statutory provision particularly Section 6 and Section
7 of the West Bengal Additional Tax and One-time Tax on Motor
Vehicles Act, 1989, the demand raised is absolutely illegal. He
submits by interpreting the said provisions of law that the
petitioner/permit holder is only liable to pay tax to the reciprocating
State for the period during which the vehicle has actually operated,
after its permit having been counter-signed in due course. Mr. Nandi
has informed that, in this case admittedly, since after renewal of the

P a g e | 4

petitioner’s permit and communication of the letter of the Deputy
th
Secretary, STA, Orissa dated 16 September, 2021, requesting the
reciprocating State for counter-signature over the said renewed
permit, no steps have yet been taken by the reciprocating State to
counter-sign the petitioner’s permit, till date. As an effect, for the
entire period of renewal of permit, the petitioner has not been able to
ply her vehicle within the State of West Bengal in terms of her permit
conditions. In such situation and in view of the specific provision of
the statute as referred to above, the counter-signing State Authority
cannot demand tax or additional tax for the period when no effective
counter-signature has been granted to the renewed permit of the writ
petitioner, Mr. Nandi has submitted.
11. In support of his contentions, Mr. Nandi, learned advocate for the
petitioner has referred to the following judgments:-
th
i) Subodh Kumar Roy Vs. State of Jharkhand dated 15 March,
2018 in WP(C) No. 4483 of 2016 (Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi)
ii) Smt. Yamuna Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Others order dated
th
25 November, 2016 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 74 of
2016 (High Court of Judicature at Patna)
iii) Sri Jata Shankar Jha vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. in
th
MAT No. 2709 of 1999 order dated 17 January, 2000 (High
Court at Calcutta)

12. The respondent authority/State is represented by Mr. Pantu Deb Roy,
Learned Advocate. The preliminary point of the State respondent is
with regard to non-maintainability of this writ petition on the ground
of availability of alternative efficacious mechanism as provided under
the statute. It is submitted that the petitioner may file a statutory
appeal in case of any grievance as against the demand or calculation
of motor vehicles tax and additional tax. Mr. Deb Roy, Learned
Advocate has strongly relied on the provision under Section 9 of the

P a g e | 5

West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1979 to submit that any
grievance against the amount of tax can be raised before the
Appellate Forum and the Appellate Authority has jurisdiction and
power as per provision under Section 9 of the Act of 1979 to decide
thereupon. Hence, the instant writ petition is stated to be not
entertainable as well as maintainable, before this Court.
13. It has further been submitted by Mr. Deb Roy that payment of motor
vehicles tax and additional tax, if any, is the statutory duty and
obligation of the permit holder and any breach disentitles the permit
holder to enjoy benefit under the permit, as per law. He insists that
the instant writ petition may be dismissed. The following judgments
have been referred to by Mr. Deb Roy on behalf of the State
respondent: -
i) Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and another Vs. State of Orissa
and Anr. reported in AIR 1983 SC 603
ii) Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West
Bngal Vs. Dunlop India Ltd. and Others reported in AIR 1985 SC
330
iii) Goutam Kumar Sarangi Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
th
dated 17 July, 2023 in WPA 12348 of 2023
14. So far as the point of maintainability of the writ petition is concerned,
after careful perusal of the provision enumerated under Section 9 of
the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1979, the Court finds that,
provision of an appeal has been prescribed therein against an order
of the Taxing Officer under the said Act. In this case, however, no
order has yet been issued by the Taxing Officer, as yet. Only the
impugned communication made by the RTO and ex-officio Assistant
Director, STA, West Bengal addressed to the Taxing Officer is
challenged herein. Therefore, the Court considers that the necessary
precondition as provided in the statute for filing of an appeal has not

P a g e | 6

yet reached and for an appeal the present case has still not matured
enough.
15. Further it is the well-settled principle of law that, existence of any
alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for a writ petition to be
maintainable in so far as the petitioner has been able to throw light
on some alleged arbitrariness, mala fide or perversity in the
administrative decision-making process. In view thereof and
considering the factual background of this case that the petitioner
has been made subject to tax twice for a specific period and that too
without counter-signature of her permit, the said precondition for
maintaining and entertaining a writ petition appears to have been
duly fulfilled in the instant case.
16. So far as the preliminary point of maintainability is concerned, as
raised by the respondent authority, thus, is overruled.
17. The Court is inclined to note the provision under Section 88(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which clearly provides that a permit
granted in the State shall not be valid, unless it is counter-signed by
the State Transport Authority of the other State. On the basis thereof,
the inter-state permit issued by State Transport Authority, Orissa in
case of the present petitioner, would not be valid in the State of West
Bengal, until it is counter-signed by the Transport Authority of the
State of West Bengal.

18. Let Sections 6 and 7 of the West Bengal Additional Tax and One-time
Tax on Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 be quoted as herein below: -
“6. Realisation of additional tax.- The additional tax leviable under section
4 shall be realized by the authority where under any law for the time
being in force such authority has to countersign the permit, and in such
case the tax shall be leviable for the entire duration for which the
countersignature subsists.
7. Computation of additional tax.- The additional tax leviable under
section 4 shall be computed on an annual basis and shall be payable to the
authority concerned before the date on which the tax becomes payable,

P a g e | 7

that is, the date on which the validity of the countersignature
commences.”


19. On a careful reading of the provisions of law as above, it clearly
transpires that, realization of any additional tax leviable has been
made subject to counter-signature of the permit. Of course, Section 6
has been worded with “in such case the tax shall be leviable for the
entire duration for which the counter-signature subsists” and Section 7
has pronounced that validity of the counter-signature should
commence before the date on which the yearly/quarterly tax becomes
payable. In case of the present petitioner, the statutory conditions as
above, are not found to have been fulfilled.
20. Record reveals that, after expiry of the validity period of the inter-
state stage carriage permit of the writ petitioner, the same has been
renewed by the issuing authority that is, STA Orissa for the period
rd nd
from 3 June, 2021 to 2 June, 2026. No counter-signature has
been granted to the petitioner despite several request letters being
sent to the counter-signing respondent authority, beginning with one
from the STA Orissa dated November 16, 2021.
21. The said factual context, being applied with the provision of the
statute as mentioned above, leads to the only conclusion that, during
the period when the renewed permit has not been counter-signed, the
permit holder is not liable to pay any tax as against the
permit/vehicle for the said period, as the counter-signature should
commence before the date on which the yearly/quarterly tax becomes
payable, irrespective of it having been actually paid or not.
th th
22. As a matter of fact, for the period from 13 July, 2019 to 30
September, 2020, the petitioner has already remitted motor vehicles
tax and additional tax for her permit. Fact remains that, in spite
thereof neither the counter-signature has been granted to her, nor
any acknowledgement of the said amount of tax remitted by the

P a g e | 8

th
petitioner is apparent from the impugned letter dated 25 September,
2024.
23. The statutory framework governing inter-State stage carriage permits
proceeds on the foundational doctrinal principle that the power to
levy and realise tax by the reciprocating State is inseparably linked
with the conferment of reciprocal operational rights by way of
counter-signature. The doctrine underlying Section 88(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Sections 6 and 7 of the West Bengal
Additional Tax and One-time Tax on Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 is that
fiscal liability and corresponding statutory privilege must operate co-
extensively. A permit holder can be compelled to bear the burden of
tax only when the State simultaneously enables lawful utilisation of
the permit within its territorial jurisdiction. In absence of counter-
signature, the permit remains inoperative in the reciprocating State
and consequently no enforceable taxable event arises for the relevant
period. Any interpretation permitting the State to realise tax without
granting the corresponding statutory right to ply the vehicle would
defeat the scheme of reciprocal transport regulation contemplated
under the statute and would amount to imposition of a levy without
the existence of the legal condition precedent contemplated by law.
24. Another important doctrinal principle attracted in the present case is
the principle against arbitrary and duplicative fiscal exaction by the
State. Taxing statutes, though strictly construed, must nevertheless
satisfy constitutional standards of fairness, non-arbitrariness and
reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Once
the petitioner had already remitted taxes for the period from 13th
July, 2019 to 30th September, 2020, raising a further demand for the
self-same period, without acknowledging such payment and
simultaneously withholding counter-signature, militates against the
doctrine that the State cannot unjustly enrich itself through repeated
or unsupported fiscal demands. Administrative authorities exercising

P a g e | 9

statutory power are bound to act in a manner consistent with
fairness, transparency and procedural propriety. The impugned
action, therefore, suffers not merely from statutory infirmity but also
from the vice of arbitrariness in administrative decision-making,
thereby justifying exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
25. In this writ petition, the Court finds that, due to operation of the
statutory provision particularly, that under Section 6 and 7 of the
West Bengal Additional Tax and One-time Tax on Motor Vehicles Act,
1989, the reciprocating authority that is the STA, West Bengal in this
case, has no jurisdiction to raise a claim for motor vehicles tax or
additional tax as against the inter-state permit of the petitioner
issued by the originating State, Orissa, unless and until it grants
counter-signature to the permit issued/renewed by the originating
State. In other words, in due consideration of the statutory provision
as mentioned above, it can be stated grant of counter signature by
the reciprocating State cannot be made subject to actual remittance
of tax by the permit holder, even if it falls due and payable.
th
26. In such view of the fact, the impugned letter dated 25 September,
2024 issued by Regional Transport Officer and ex-officio Assistant
Director, STA, West Bengal appears to be without jurisdiction and not
in conformity with the law. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed.

27. For the reasons as discussed above, the instant writ petition is
disposed of with the following directions: -
th
i) Impugned letter dated 25 September, 2024 is set aside.
ii) The Secretary, State Transport Authority, West Bengal/respondent
No. 4 is directed to immediately grant counter-signature as regards
the renewed permit of the writ petitioner within a period of 10 days
from the date of communication of copy of this judgment.

P a g e | 10

iii) this order however does not restrain the respondent to realise due
and outstanding tax and additional tax, if any, from the
petitioner/permit holder, in accordance with the law.
28. With the directions as above, the instant writ petition No. 6940 of
2025 is disposed of with pending application, if any.
29. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to
the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.


(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)