2020 Supreme(Megh) 35

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
H.S. Thangkhiew, Wanlura Diengdoh, JJ.
Marbat Dohkrot and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Meghalaya and Ors. - Respondent
WP (C) Nos. 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117 and 118 of 2020
Decided On : 26-06-2020

The principles of natural justice are flexible and may be excluded in certain circumstances, such as when there is an admission of charge or when the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling.

Headnote:

MINERAL CESS - DEMAND NOTICE - FORM H - FORM J - RULES 11(2) AND 11(4) OF MEGHALAYA MINERAL CESS RULES, 1989 - VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - IGNORANCE OF LAW - WAIVER, ACQUIESCENCE AND ESTOPPEL - LIMITATION - WRIT JURISDICTION - EQUITABLE RELIEF - DELAY - CONCEALMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.

Fact of the Case:

The 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 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. 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.

Finding of the Court:

The impugned proceedings and notices cannot be said to be vitiated, for not strictly adhering to procedure prescribed, as also the other prayers made in the writ petitions which are found to be unsustainable in law. However, an aspect which does not escape our notice, is the fact that the MMC Rules 1989 do not contain a provision for appeal against an order of assessment made under Rule 11(4) of the Rules, and an opportunity of being heard, is only provided before the imposition of penalty for non-payment of tax or cess under Section 7 of the MMC Act, 1988. In our considered opinion, though this point has not been specifically pleaded, it was urged in the course of hearing, and reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of S.K. Bhargava vs. Collector, Chandigarh & Ors. reported in (1998) 5 SCC 170. Liberty was also prayed to allow the petitioners to represent before any further action is taken against them, in connection with the arrears in cess. This point in the interest of justice requires some deliberation.

Issues: 1. Whether the impugned demand notices were in violation of the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to equitable relief under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court? 3. Whether the petitioners were estopped from seeking relief due to concealment of material facts? 4. Whether the writ petitions were barred by limitation? 5. Whether the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The impugned notices were not in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioners were well aware of their liability to submit returns and to pay the requisite cess. 2. The petitioners were not entitled to equitable relief under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court as they had concealed material facts and had not approached the Court with clean hands. 3. The writ petitions were not barred by limitation as the challenge was to the legality of the impugned notices and not to the assessment of cess. 4. The writ petitions were not liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as the petitioners had filed the writ petitions within a reasonable time of receiving the impugned notices.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed.