SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 345

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
OM NARAYAN RAI, J.
Ashok Kumar Gorain – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondent
WPA 11601 of 2025
Decided On : 08-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Sattwik Bhattacharyya, Adv. Mr. Titas Niyogi, Adv. Ms. Reshma Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aritra Ray, Ad
For the Respondents: Mr. Amal Kumar Sen, Ld. AGP Mr. Lal Mohan Basu, Adv., Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, Adv.

Tax obligations cannot be imposed absent the requisite countersignature on interstate vehicle permits, with permit renewal constituting a fresh permit under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 81(1) and 88 - Taxation concerning vehicle permit renewal - Court found that the demand for additional tax prior to countersigning the interstate permit is unjustified as countersignature is required before any taxes can be demanded - Petitioner’s permit was renewed yet not countersigned, leading to demand for taxes from an earlier date - Court clarified countersignature must precede tax obligation. (Paras 8, 11, 28)

(B) Legal Principle - The renewal of a permit constitutes a new permit, necessitating its countersignature to validate any tax obligations. (Paras 17-18)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner applied for countersigning his vehicle permit after it was renewed by another State's authority. The State Transport Authority, West Bengal refused, demanding additional tax without countersigning.

Findings of Court:
The court declared that tax could not be demanded from the petitioner without the requisite countersignature on the permit.

Issues: The central issue was whether tax could be demanded without the countersignature appended to the renewed interstate permit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that countersignature of the interstate permit is essential for the imposition of tax obligations, emphasizing the procedural necessity upheld by previous judgments.

Result: State Transport Authority, West Bengal directed to countersign the permit and cease tax demands without such countersignature.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges refusal to renew permit. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments address tax demands without countersignature. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 24)
3. review of statutory provisions guiding permit renewal. (Para 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 19)
4. interpretation of renewal and countersignature requirements. (Para 15 , 18 , 20)
5. court rules against tax demand prior to countersignature. (Para 26 , 28)

Judgment :

Om Narayan Rai, J.

1. This writ petition assails the refusal on the part of the State Transport Authority, West Bengal to countersign the renewal of the petitioner’s permit bearing no. PSTS - 14/09 (WB) for his Vehicle No. JH-09AR-0684 in respect of the route Ranchi to Chirkunda (extended up to Asansol) despite the same being forwarded to it by the State Transport Authority, Jharkhand as far back as on January 21, 2025.

2. Briefly summed up, the case run in the writ petition is as follows: -

a) The petitioner owns a vehicle bearing no. JH-09AR-0684 in respect whereof he had obtained a Permanent Stage Carriage Permit bearing no. P.S.TS.No.14/09(WB) from the State Transport Authority, Jharkhand.

b) Such permit was lastly renewed by the said State Transport Authority, Jharkhand on January 16, 2025 for a period of 5 years till January 19, 2029 with effect from January 20, 2024.

c) Having thus renewed the permanent stage carriage permit of the petitioner, the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Jharkhand issued a Memo being Pari-Ayu-1462/2008/STA dated January 16, 2025 to the Secretary State Transport Authority, West Bengal thereby indicating that the permanent stage carriage permit in respect of the petitioner’s vehicle was initially valid till January 19, 2024 and that upon renewal its validity had been extended up to January 19, 2029. By the said letter the Secretary, State Transport Authority, West Bengal was also requested to countersign the said renewed permit.

d) Thereafter on January 21, 2025, the petitioner made an application before the State Transport Authority, West Bengal for countersigning the renewed permit along with the approved time table issued by the State Transport Authority, Jharkhand. The petitioner’s application requesting for such countersignature has been refused by the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Regional Transport Authority and Ex-officio Assistant Director, State Transport Authority, West Bengal by a Memo bearing no. I/610950/2025 dated February 25, 2025 observing as follows: -

“I am directed to request you to collect Additional Tax and M.V. Tax in connection with the subject as mentioned above with effect from 20/01/2024 to 19/01/2029 with fine (Quarterly/Yearly basis), to Tax and Addl. Tax may be paid 01/04/2024 onwards.”

e) Feeling aggrieved by such refusal, the writ petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

3. The respondent no.3 has filed a Report in the form of an Affidavit whereby the said respondent has sought to justify the demand of tax. In the said report it has been contended that when the permit had originally been issued in the year 2009 by the State Transport Authority, Jharkhand, the same had been duly countersigned by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal and that since the said permit has been renewed on January 16, 2025 for five years with effect from January 20, 2024 till January 19, 2029, therefore, in terms of the proviso to Section 81(1) of the said Act of 1988, the countersignature that was done prior to the date of renewal thereof (i.e. January 16, 2025) would remain effective for the renewed validity period “so as to synchronise with the validity of the primary permit”. Provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the West Bengal Additional Tax and One Time Tax on Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 (hereafter “the said Additional Tax Act of 1989”) have also been quoted and relied on in the said report.

4. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the State Transport Authority, West Bengal had acted without jurisdicti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top