Abhishek Kumar Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court considered a petition challenging the order dated 3rd February, 2026 rejecting the petitioner’s representation dated 24th June, 2025 seeking refund of Rs.1,55,660/-.
The petitioner contended that the authorities decided the representation without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing. It was submitted that an adjournment had been sought three days before the hearing but was rejected, resulting in the representation being decided in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner further relied upon the earlier order passed in WPA 21006 of 2025, Abhishek Kumar Vs State of West Bengal & Ors., dated 11th December, 2025, by which a Co-ordinate Bench had directed the authorities to consider the representation dated 24th June, 2025 by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner also submitted that the earlier order required the authorities to consider and examine the sufficiency of the registration certificate of a newly registered vehicle before imposing fine and/or penalty by reckoning a period of 17 weeks retrospectively from the date of interception. The petitioner stated that the authorities had failed to comply with those directions and sought remand of the matter for a fresh hearing.
The State opposed the petition, submitting that the impugned order specifically recorded that the petitioner had appeared in person and was afforded a patient and fair hearing during which he reiterated his submissions. According to the State, all submissions were duly considered before the order was passed. The State further relied upon Government Order No. 11480(38)-WT/3M/119/89 dated 11th September, 1989, which clarified that where the Taxing Officer is the RTO, ARTO or SDO, the appellate authority under the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1979 is the District Magistrate. On that basis, it was argued that an efficacious statutory remedy was available to challenge the impugned order.
In reply, the petitioner submitted that the Government Order relied upon by the State was merely an administrative order and was not applicable to the facts of the case.
After considering the submissions, the Court held that there was no substance in the petitioner’s contention regarding denial of opportunity. On perusal of the impugned order, the Court found that sufficient opportunity had been provided to the petitioner to make his submissions. The Court observed that the matter could not be remanded merely because the petitioner’s counsel was not present during the hearing.
The Court referred to Section 9 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1979, which provides a statutory right of appeal against an order made by a Taxing Officer and requires that the appellant be given an opportunity of hearing before the appeal is decided. The Court also reproduced Government Order No. 11480(38)-WT/3M/119/89 dated 11th September, 1989, which clarifies the appellate authorities under Section 9 and prescribes the procedure for filing and deciding such appeals.
The Court held that the Government Order merely clarified the appellate authority contemplated under Section 9 of the Act. Since an equally efficacious statutory remedy was available, the petitioner should avail the appellate remedy.
Accordingly, the Court directed that, if an appeal is preferred, the appellate authority shall decide it independently and without being influenced by the High Court’s order. The writ petition was disposed of.
Cases Discussed
- Abhishek Kumar Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court), WPA 21006 of 2025
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 3rd February, 2026 whereby the representation dated 24th June, 2025 filed by the petitioner seeking refund of Rs.1,55,660/- was rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the concerned authorities decided the representation without giving an adequate opportunity to the petitioner for making submissions. Learned counsel submits that in fact three days before the hearing, a request was made by the learned counsel for an adjournment. However, the concerned authority rejected the same illegally and proceeded to conduct the hearing on 3rd February, 2026 and rejected the same in violation of principle of nature justice.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the earlier petition being WPA 21006 of 2025 titled as Abhishek Kumar State of West Bengal & Ors., the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11th December, 2025 specifically directed the authorities to consider the representation dated 24th June, 2025 and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law upon affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed to consider and probe into the sufficiency of the “registration certificate” of a vehicle newly registered before imposing fine and / or penalty by reckoning a period of 17 weeks retrospectively from the date of interception. Learned counsel submits that the authorities have miserably failed to comply with the order of the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner would be satisfy if the matter is remanded back for fresh hearing after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the submissions and submits that in order dated 3rd February, 2026, it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner appeared in person and he was given patient and fair hearing during which he reiterated his submissions. Learned counsel submits that all the submissions were duly considered. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that as per Government order no. 11480(38)-WT/3M/119/89 dated 11th September, 1989, it was clarified that in case an order passed by the RTO or ARTO or SDO being the Taxing Officer, the appellate authority shall be District Magistrate. Learned counsel submits that, therefore, there is an efficacious remedy available with the petitioner to challenge the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notification being relied upon by the learned counsel for the State is an Administrative order and is not applicable to the present set of facts.
6. The Court has considered the submission. The Court considers that there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner of making his submissions. The matter cannot be remanded back only because the learned counsel was not present.
7. Furthermore, Section 9 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1979, provides as under:
“9. Appeal.–(1) Any person aggrieved by any order made by a Taxing Officer under this Act may appeal against the order to such appellate authority, in such manner, within such time and on payment of such fees as may be prescribed.
(2) Any such appeal shall be heard and decided by the appellate authority in such manner as may be prescribed and the decision of the appellate authority on such appeal shall be fmal :
Provided that no appeal shall be decided without giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard.”
8. The notification / Government order being relied upon by the State is reproduced as under :
“10. No. 11480(38)-WT/3M-119/89 dated 11th September, 1989
A query was raised by R.T.O., Jalpaiguri in the meeting held at Siliguri on 28.8.89 regarding the Appellate Authority under section 9 of the WBMV Tax Act, 1979. The following clarifications were being used :-
(1) That the Appellate Authority under section 9 of the said Act shall be as follows :-
i. Where the Taxing Officer is RTO or ARTO or SDO, the Appellate Authority shall be District Magistrate.
ii. Where the Taxing Officer is the PVD (Tax) at PVD Calcutta, the Appellate Authority shall be Director, PVD, Calcutta
(2) An appeal under section 9 shall be preferred in the form of memorandum in duplicate, one copy of which shall bear the court fee of Rs. 25/- setting forth concisely the grounds of objection to the order of the Taxing Officer and shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the order appealed against.
(3) When an appeal is preferred, a notice shall be issued to the Authority against whose order the appeal is preferred.
(4) The Appellate Authority after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard and after such enquiry, if any, as it may deem necessary, may confirm, vary or set aside the order from which the appeal is preferred or make any amendment consequential or incidental thereto or that may be just and proper and shall make an order accordingly.
(5) The court fee referred to above shall not be refundable.
(6) Certified copy of any order of the Taxing Officer shall be issued normally within 7(seven) days from the date on which the requisitions are furnished, on receipt of the funds calculated at the rate of Rs. 50/- for the first page and Rs. 10/- for each additional page of such document. In urgent cases for which urgent fees at double the above rate will have to be paid, certified copies shall be issued within 3 (three) working days from the date on which the requisitions are made.
(7) An appeal shall be preferred from the Appellate Authority within 30 (thirty) days to the date of issue of the order appealed against.
Sd/- Sumantra Choudhury
Joint Secy. To the Govt. Of West Bengal.
9. The Government order has merely clarified the appellate authority in terms of Section 9 of the WBMVT Act, 1979. The Court considers that since there is an equal efficacious remedy available with the petitioner, the petitioner should avail the same.
10. The appellate authority shall decide the appeal independently without being influenced by the order of this Court.
11. With the above discussions made hereinabove, the present petition stands disposed of.
12. All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
