JUDGMENT :

H.S. Thangkhiew, J.

1. This instant batch of writ petitions assailing the impugned demand notices issued under Rules 11(2) and 11(4) of the Meghalaya Mineral Cess Rules, 1989, being similar and identical in facts and circumstances, are proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. All the writ petitioners are holders of valid mining leases under the provisions of the Meghalaya Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 framed under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The writ petitioners produce and extract limestone for the manufacturing of lime and for raw limestone export to Bangladesh by paying the requisite royalty amount, reclamation fee as well as GST.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned demand notices had been served upon them, directing the submission of returns as per the rules, and also for payment of arrear cess charged under the Meghalaya Mineral Cess Rules, 1989 within a period of 60 days, from the date of the impugned demand notice. The grievance of the writ petitioners, is based on the pleading that the impugned demand notices, can never be construed as a statutory notice issued under Rule 11(2) in 'Form H', and that further, the tax liability period for filing of returns and the date for submission of the same under Rule 5, are completely absent in the impugned demand notices, which have been issued under the provisions of Meghalaya Mineral Cess Rules, 1989. Further grievance is that the Director (Respondent No. 3) has already pre-determined the arrear cess payable, while at the same time directing the petitioners to submit the returns, which they assert, is in violation of the statutory requirements. As such, the writ petitioners are before this Court by way of these writ petitions.

4. Before embarking upon the discussion on the matter, it is important to note that the writ petitions are in a manner, a continuation of an on-going dispute wherein the vires of the Meghalaya Mineral Cess Act, 1989 has been put to challenge by an Association under the name of Limestone and Boulder Stone Miners Cum Exporters Forum, in WP(C) No. 454 of 2019, of which the writ petitioners are also members. A Misc. application in the writ petition being Misc. Case No. 244 of 2019, is also pending adjudication, wherein directions have been sought to command the respondents not to insist on the payment of cess retrospectively, pending the decision in WP(C) No. 454 of 2019. Though, undoubtedly connected, the present writ petitions specifically assail only the demand notices, and as such the disposal of the instant writ petitions pending the adjudication of the challenge to the vires of the Act, will not impact, or be considered to have any bearing on WP(C) No. 454 of 2019.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned demand notices assailed in these writ petitions, have been issued under Rule 11 (4) of the Meghalaya Mineral Cess Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as MMC Rules, 1989) quantifying the quantity of minerals, cess liability period and arrears of cess in 'Form J', after a unilateral assessment made by the Respondent No. 3 (Director) under Rule 11 (4) without issuing notice under Rule 11 (2) for filing of monthly returns, within 30 days as provided in the MMC Rules, 1989. Learned counsel also contends that the respondent No. 3 by not adhering to the provisions of the Rules, has also violated the principles of natural justice and hence the impugned action and notices are unsustainable in law.

7. Learned counsel submits that the impugned demand notice can never be construed as a valid statutory notice issued under Rule 11(2) in 'Form H', inasmuch as, the requirement on the issuance of the notice under Rule 11(2) is for submission of the returns under Rule 5 in 'Fo