Page 1 of 21

Serial No. 01

Supplementary List

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

WP(C) No. 59 of 2024

Reserved on :09.06.2026

Pronounced on :01.10.2026

Uploaded on :01.10.2026

Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full___

Megha Technical and Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,

A company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956

and having its registered office situated at Lumshnong,

P.O. Khliehriat in the district of East Jaintia Hills Meghalaya-793200 and

Represented by Mr. Sanjib Kumar Saharia, the Authorised Signatory of

The Petitioner Company …. Petitioner(s)

Versus

1.State of Meghalaya represented by

The Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya,

Finance Department, Meghalaya Secretariat, Shillong

2. The Commissioner of Taxes,

Office of the Commissioner of Taxes,

4

th

Secretariat Building, Lachumiere, Shillong-793001

3. The Superintendent of Taxes,

East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat …. Respondent(s)

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, Judge

Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge

Appearance:

For the Petitioner(s) : Dr. A. Saraf, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. S.J. Saikia, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Kumar, AG with

Mr. N. Syngkon, GA

Mr. J.N. Rynjah, GA

Ms. S. Laloo, GA

2026:MLHC:1107-DB

Page 2 of 21

____________________________________________________________

i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No

Law journals etc:

ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No

in press:

Per. H.S. Thangkhiew, Judge:

JUDGMENT:

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Scrutiny

Reports and Notices for curing of defects in tax returns issued by the

respondent No. 3, under Section 39 of the Meghalaya VAT Act, 2003 for the

period from quarter ending 30.06.2007 to quarter ending 30.06.2017. The

contention of the petitioner is that no notice under Section 35 was issued to

the petitioner company, which is a condition precedent for scrutiny of

records under Section 39 of the Act. It is the further contention that the said

powers under 39 of the Act for scrutiny of returns cannot be exercised at any

time, since the Act of 2003 provides the period for 5 years from the end of

the tax period, as the period of limitation for completing the assessment. It

is alleged that in the present case the scrutiny has been completed and notice

issued under Section 39 of the Act, much after the expiry of the period of

limitation for the completion of assessment. The action of the respondents

as per the petitioner company is therefore arbitrary, illegal, without

jurisdiction, barred by limitation, and as such the same are liable to be set

aside and quashed. 2026:MLHC:1107-DB

Page 3 of 21

2. Dr. A Saraf, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.J. Saikia,

learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a plain reading of

Section 39 of the Act shows that the scrutiny of returns under this provision

can only be done when a notice has been issued to a dealer by the

Commissioner of Taxes under Section 35 of the Meghalaya Value Added

Tax Act, 2003. The learned Senior counsel has placed reliance upon the

judgment of a Division Bench of Tripura High Court dated 20.01.2020

passed in WP(C) No. 1109 of 2019 and WP(C) No. 1111 of 2019, in the

case of Shri Pankaj Bihari Saha vs. State of Tripura & Ors. wherein the

said Court while examining a pari materia provision of Section 27 of the

Tripura VAT Act held that the said power can be exercised only in relation

to a dealer to whom notice has been issued by the Commissioner under

Section 24 of the said Act. It is further submitted that it is a normal rule of

construction that when a statute vests certain powers in an authority to be

exercised in a particular manner, then the said authority has to exercise it

only in the manner provided in the statute itself.

3. Coming to the facts at hand, it is submitted that the petitioner

company had been regularly submitting its monthly returns under the Act

and claiming remission under the Meghalaya Value Added Tax Remission

Scheme, 2006 and had paid all taxes as due, as per the returns filed. The

assessment he contends for the period in question i.e. 30.06.2007 to 2026:MLHC:1107-DB

Page 4 of 21

30.06.2017, could not have been carried out by the respondents in view of

the provisions of Section 57 of the MVAT Act, 2003, which provides that

no assessment under Sections 52 and 56 can be made after the expiry of 5

years from the end of the tax period to which the assessment relates. The

scrutiny reports of returns for the said period therefore, was clearly without

jurisdiction as they are beyond the limitation prescribed in the Act. The

petitioner he submits also received the impugned notices issued by the

respondent No. 3, for curing defects in the tax returns for the said period

issued on 08.03.2023, which he contends is clearly after the period of

limitation for completion of assessment, and as such the entire proceedings

are without jurisdiction. It has also been submitted by the learned Senior

counsel that Section 35(3) of the MVAT Act provides that a notice can be

issued by the Commissioner to furnish returns only to a dealer “other than a

registered dealer” and does not provide for a notice to be issued to a

registered dealer, and as the petitioner company is duly registered under the

MVAT Act, even the question of issuance of notice under Section 35 does

not arise at all. It is also argued that there is a clear distinction between

registered dealer who are obliged to file returns under Section 35(2) and

other dealers who may be required to file returns under Section 35(3), upon

which the scrutiny power under Section 39 is expressly conditioned and 2026:MLHC:1107-DB

Page 5 of 21

therefore, for registered dealer who do not fall Section 35(3), the scrutiny

provision cannot be invoked.

4. It has also been contended that the impugned notices for curing

defects in the tax returns were issued without granting any reasonable

opportunity to the petitioner by way of show cause notice and the scrutiny

was completed and notices were issued on the same date, which left no scope

for the petitioner to present its case or explain the alleged defects. This action

it is submitted is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice, as well

as the provision of Section 39 of the MVAT Act. On another limb of

submission, it has been argued that in the action of the respondents there is

an absence of proper delegation of powers, inasmuch as, even if the

respondent No. 3, could exercise powers under Section 39, such powers

should be properly delegated by the respondent No. 2, in accordance with

Section 26 of the MVAT Act read with Chapter-II of the MVAT Rules,

2005, whereby Rule 3 mandates that the respondent No. 2 (Commissioner)

must delegate powers through a notification in the Official Gazette. No such

notification, it is asserted exists delegating Section 39 powers to the

respondent No. 3, but it appears that the respondents have relied on an

internal order or circular, which does not satisfy the statutory requirements

of the gazette notification, which renders the delegation legally incompetent

and resultantly the action of the respondent No. 3, without jurisdiction. 2026:MLHC:1107-DB

Page 6 of 21

5. With regard to the notice dated 27.04.2017, which has been

brought on record by the respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition, it has

been contended that from a plain reading thereof, it is clear that the said

notice was for the purpose of completing the assessment and for that

purpose, the books of account were directed to be produced. Section 39 of

the Act however, he submits is for scrutiny of returns to verify the

correctness of calculation, application of the correct rate of tax and interest

and input tax credit claim therein. Such scrutiny he submits, is to be done on

the basis of returns filed by a dealer and after examining the books of

accounts and documents to be produced by dealer, and therefore the notice

dated 27.04.2017, was but a notice for completion of assessment, but after 6

years from the issuance of the notice, the returns was said to be scrutinized

under Section 39 of the Act, and notices under Form 20 issued. Thus, the

notice dated 24.04.2017, cannot save the proceedings, and that the question

of examining the merits of the order under Section 39, will arise only when

the assessing authority has jurisdiction to proceed with the scrutiny of

returns. The question of suppression of facts, he asserts does not arise,

inasmuch as, the notice dated 27.04.2017, was for completion of assessment

and not for scrutiny of returns, moreover keeping in mind the fact, that the

challenge in the present writ petition is directed against notices and orders 2026:MLHC:1107-DB

Page 7 of 21

issued under Section 39, for scrutiny of returns, which are distinct

proceedings.

6. The learned Senior counsel in support of his submissions has

placed reliance on the following judgments: -

i) Shri Pankaj Behari Saha vs. State of Tripura WP(C) No.

1109/2019

ii) Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Anjum M.H.

Ghaswala & Ors. (2002) 1 SCC 633

iii) State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk

Producers Union Ltd. (2007) 11 SCC 363

iv) Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue,

(1921) 1 K.B. 64

v) Murarilal Mahabir Prasad & Ors. vs. Shri B.R Vad & Ors.

(1975) 2 SCC 736

vi) C.I.T. Madras vs. Ajax Products Ltd., AIR 1965 SC 1358

vii) Srimati Tarulata Shyam & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Income-

Tax, West Bengal (1977) 3 SCC 305

viii) Polestar Electronic (Pvt) Ltd., vs. Additional Commissioner,

Sales Tax & Anr. (1978) 1 SCC 636

ix) H.H. Lakshmi Bai & Anr. vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax &

Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 534

x) Federation of A.P. Chambers of Commerce & Industry & Ors.

vs. State of A.P. & Ors. (2000) 6 SCC 550

xi) Ajmera Housing Corporation & Anr. vs. Commissioner of

Income Tax (2010) 8 SCC 739

xii) K. Subamanian vs. Siemens India Ltd., 1988 173 ITR 136 2026:MLHC:1107-DB

Page 8 of 21

xiii) Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai,

(1998) 8 SCC 1

xiv) Assistant Commissioner of State Tax vs. Commercial Steel

Limited (2021) SCC Online SC 884

xv) Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-

Assessing Authority & Ors. (2023) 109 GSTR 402 (SC)

xvi) Union of India & Ors. vs. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd., (2011) 40

VST 1 (SC)

7. With regard to the judgment placed by the respondents i.e.

J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., vs. State of Utter

Pradesh & Ors., the learned Senior counsel submits that the same has no

relevance to the instant case as Section 39 is a special provision that

presupposes issuance of notice by the respondent No. 3, under Section 35,

and as such there is no question of any conflict between the general and

special provisions in this context.

8. He therefore, concludes by submitting that the action of the

respondents being clearly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, the

impugned Notices and proceedings are liable to be set aside and quashed.

9. Mr. A. Kumar, learned AG assisted by Mr. N. Syngkon, learned

GA for the respondents in reply has at the outset submitted that the petitioner

has suppressed materials facts which have a bearing on the outcome of the

writ petition, inasmuch as, the notice served upon the petitioner to produce 2026:MLHC:1107-DB

Page 9 of 21

Books of Accounts as far back as on 27.04.2017, has not been divulged. By

the said notice it is submitted, the petitioner was directed to produce its, Sales

and Purchase Registers, List of Tax Invoices, Cashbook and Ledgers, Stock

Registers and a Detailed List of exempted goods for the period 01.05.2005

to 31.12.2016. The said notice he further submits, was duly received by an

Assistant Manager who complied with the same on 19.10.2021, by

producing the Books of Accounts, and in this context the learned

Advocate General has referred to the notice along with an acknowledgment

enclosed at Annexure-1 to the affidavit-in-opposition. It is then contended

that the factum of the said notice negates the pleas of the petitioner of non-

issuance of notice before conducting scrutiny and also the aspect of

limitation, and on this ground alone the writ petition merits outright

dismissal for suppressing material facts. Reliance has been placed in support

of this submission on the case of K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority India

Limited & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 48, wherein it has been held that if the

applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly, the Court

has inherent power to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule

and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits.

Further judgments namely; (i) Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha (2024) 4

SCC 432 (ii) K. Jayaram v. BDA (2022) 12 SCC 815 (iii) Prestige Lights

Ltd. v. SBI (2007) 8 SCC 449 and (iv) S. Tripathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah 2026:MLHC:1107-DB

Page 10 of 21

(2024) SCC OnLine SC 1764, have also been pressed into service on this

point.

10. The learned AG has then contended that the entire case of the

petitioner is based on the argument that no notice under Section 35 has been

issued to the petitioner and therefore, the notices and orders under Section

39 of the MVAT Act are illegal. As per the pleadings he submits, it can be

taken that the case of the petitioner is that no notice under Section 35 can be

issued to registered dealers and therefore, Section 39 must be read in such a

manner to be applicable only to unregistered dealers, meaning thereby

essentially any proceedings initiated against registered dealers is illegal. This

argument according to the learned AG is flawed and contrary to the

provision of MVAT Act, inasmuch as, Section 39 provides for “Security of

Return” and under Section 35(2) every registered dealer is mandated to

furnish returns, and as such Section 39 cannot be read to exclude registered

dealers and that there is no provision of scrutiny of returns furnished by

registered dealers, such as the petitioner. It is also submitted that Section 35

and Section 39 must be read harmoniously and consequently there is no

mandate to issue notice under Section 35 to registered dealers, or that Section

39 can be invoked independently of Section 35. Reliance on this point has

been placed on the case of Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc.,

2005 (2) SCC 145. An argument has been further advanced that even when 2026:MLHC:1107-DB

Page 11 of 21

there is some ambiguity or incongruity, this Court can read down the

expressions in order to interpret Section 35 and Section 39 harmoniously.

11. The defects detected during scrutiny have also been highlighted

and it is submitted that a mere reading of Section 39 makes it clear that

scrutiny is allowed for each and every return furnished by a registered dealer,

and during scrutiny if any mistake is detected, the assessing authority is

allowed to serve notice upon the dealer to make payment of additional tax

along with interest and that Section 39 does not provide for any limitation

period for scrutiny and is permissible for any tax period. It is also contended

that limitation prescribed by Section 57 is not applicable to Section 39

proceedings because the proceedings were not drawn up under Section 55

and 56, so as to make Section 57, applicable but were drawn up under

Section 39, where there is no limitation. The respondent No. 3 it is asserted,

has been delegated with the power to proceed with scrutiny of returns in

terms of Section 56 of the MVAT Act read with Chapter-II of the MVAT

Rules, and as such is competent to act under Section 39. It is then reiterated

that initial notice had been issued on 27.04.2017, which provided reasonable

opportunity to the petitioner whereafter on production of Books of Accounts,

Notices in Form-20 in terms of Rule 32 of the MVAT Rules for curing

defects and making payment of extra tax along with interest were sent. As

such, it is submitted the question of violation of the principles of natural 2026:MLHC:1107-DB

Page 12 of 21

justice does not arise and the provision of Section 39 was fully complied

with, as prior notice was issued. It is then lastly submitted that there being

alternative remedy available under Section 65 of the MVAT Act, 2003, the

petitioner should have exhausted that remedy before approaching this Court

under Article-226, and the writ petition is also liable to dismissed as being

not maintainable.

12. From the materials and submissions as tendered, in the opinion

of this Court the following issues have arisen for determination: -

i) Firstly, whether scrutiny under Section 39 of the MVAT Act, 2003

can be validly initiated without issuance of notice under Section

35 by the respondent No. 2 and whether such notice can be issued

to a registered dealer given that Section 35(3) specifically refers to

dealers “other than a registered dealer”

ii) Secondly, whether the period of limitation of 5 years prescribed

under Section 57 of the MVAT Act, 2003 for completion of

assessments under Section 55 & 56 can be read into Section 39

proceedings for scrutiny of returns and consequently, whether

initiation of scrutiny proceedings in March, 2023, for the period

2007 to 2017 is barred by limitation.

iii) Thirdly, whether the respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Taxes)

had jurisdiction and authority to initiate proceedings under Section 2026:MLHC:1107-DB

Page 13 of 21

39 of the Act as provided under Section 26 and Chapter-II of the

MVAT Rules, regarding delegation of powers.

iv) Whether there has been violation of the principles of natural

justice, and whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the

existence of alternative remedy under Section 65 of the MVAT

Act, 2003, given that a challenge is to jurisdiction to initiate such

proceedings.

13. In the considered view of this Court therefore, the issue for

determination as given hereinbefore will primarily deal with the

interpretation of the language used in Section 35 and 39 of the MVAT Act,

2003, which for the sake of convenience are reproduced hereinbelow: -

“35. Periodical return and payment of tax and interest-

(1) Tax payable under this Act shall be paid in the manner

hereinafter provided at such interval as may be prescribed.

(2) Every registered dealer shall, in the prescribed manner, furnish

such returns by such dates and to such authority as may be

prescribed.

(3) Any dealer, other than a registered dealer referred to in sub-

section (2), shall if so required by the Commissioner by a notice

served in the prescribed manner, furnish returns in accordance with

the provisions of sub-section (2).

(4) Before any dealer furnishes a return required by sub-section (2)

or sub-section (3), he shall, in the prescribed manner pay, into a

Government Treasury or the State Bank of India [or any Bank

authorised by the Governmen] the full amount of tax due from him

under the Act, according to such return, and shall furnish along

with such return and receipt from the Treasury or Bank showing to

the payment of such amount. 2026:MLHC:1107-DB

Page 14 of 21

Provided that a registered dealer shall subject to such

conditions as may be prescribed, pay in the prescribed manner the

tax payable under the Act for any prescribed part of the period for

which a return is required to be furnished under sub-section (2) or

sub-section (3) by such date as may be prescribed after the expiry of

the prescribed part of the period as aforesaid.

Provided further that a dealer may furnish return within the

prescribed date without making payment of tax either in full or in

part subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.

(5) If any dealer discovers any omission or any other error in any

return furnished by him, he may, at any time before the date

prescribed for the furnishing of the next return by him, furnish a

revised return, and if the revised return shows be greater amount of

tax to be due that what was shown in the original return, it shall be

accompanied by a receipt showing payment of the extra amount in

the manner provided in sub-section (4).

39. Scrutiny of return –

(1) Each and every return in relation to any tax period furnished

by a registered dealer to whom notice has been issued by the

Commissioner under section 35 shall be subject to scrutiny by

the Assessing Authority to verify the correctness of

calculation, application of correct rate of tax and interest and

input tax credit claimed therein; and full payment of and

interest payable by the dealer during such period.

(2) If any mistake is detected as result of such scrutiny made

as per the provisions of sub-section (1) the Assessing

Authority shall serve a notice in the prescribed form on the

dealer to make payment of the extra amount of tax along with

the interest as per the provisions of this Act, if it is payable by

a date specified in the said notice.

(3) If the Commissioner:-

(a)Discovers any error or omission in any return furnished

by a dealer: or

(b)Has reasons to believe upon information or otherwise that 2026:MLHC:1107-DB

Page 15 of 21

a dealer has furnished incorrect statement of his turnover of

sales or turnover of purchases or incorrect particulars of his,

sales or purchases in any return. He may required such

dealer to produce any accounts, register, statements or

documents or to furnish any information regarding

purchases, sales, deliveries, stock of goods or payments made

or received or any other related or incidental matter for the

purpose of verification of such return.”

14. Section 35, which deals with periodical returns and payment of

tax and interest at Section 35(2) mandates that every registered dealer shall

in a prescribed manner furnish such returns by such dates and to such

authority as may be prescribed and 35(3) refers any dealer, other than a

registered dealer referred to in 35(2), who shall if so, required by the

Commissioner by a notice in the prescribed manner, furnish returns in

accordance with the provision of sub-section (2). The Acts therefore, make

it amply clear as to the distinction between a registered dealer and any dealer

other than a registered dealer, wherein a notice is not required to be served

upon a registered dealer to furnish returns.

Section 39 as quoted above, dealing with the Scrutiny of Return at

39(1) thereof, speaks of each and every return in relation to any tax period

furnished by a registered dealer to whom notice has been issued by the

Commissioner under Section 35 shall be subject to scrutiny by the assessing

authority to verify the correctness of calculation etc. 2026:MLHC:1107-DB

Page 16 of 21

15. Thus, the language of Section 39(1) is very clear and

unambiguous as it mandates that scrutiny shall be conducted of returns

furnished by registered dealer to whom notice has been issued by the

Commissioner under Section 35. This to the mind of the Court is not merely

a procedural formality but a condition precedent that goes to the root of the

authority and jurisdiction to undertake scrutiny. The respondents stand that

Section 39 allows scrutiny of “each and every return” irrespective of whether

notice under section 35 has been issued is a misreading of the provision,

inasmuch as, the words “to whom notice has been issued by the

Commissioner under Section 35” qualify the class of registered dealers

whose returns can be scrutinized. Section 39 being the specific provision

therefore, requires notice under Section 35 as a precondition. The principle

therefore, that power must be exercised in the manner provided by the

statute, as held in Kunwar Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. (2007) 5 SCC 85 (Para

16), directly applies that provision of a statute when statute prescribes a

particular manner for doing a particular act, that must be done in that manner

alone, and an authority cannot assume jurisdiction in a manner not

authorised or allowed by a statute. In a similar case which has great

persuasive value, a Division Bench of the Tripura High Court in the case of

Shri Pankaj Bihari Saha vs. State of Tripura & Ors (supra), while

considering the provisions of the Tripura Value Added Tax, 2004, which 2026:MLHC:1107-DB

Page 17 of 21

contains provisions which are pari materia to the provisions of MVAT Act

namely; Sections 24 (periodical returns and payment of tax) and Section 27

(scrutiny of returns). In similar circumstances, while also considering the

limitation prescribed, held that unless and until notices are issued in terms

of Section 24(2) of TVAT Act, the authorities cannot invoke powers under

Section 27 of the TVAT Act. Paragraph 20 thereof, which is relevant is

reproduced hereinbelow: -

“20. The special powers can be exercised only in relation to a

dealer to whom notice has been issued by the Commissioner

under Section 24 of the Act. Section 24 refers to issuance of

notice only under sub-section (2) of the Act. Necessarily,

therefore, unless and until such notice is issued in terms of

sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the TVAT Act, the TVAT

authorities cannot invoke the powers under Section 27 of the

TVAT Act. Any other view would defeat the very scheme of

the said Chapter providing for audit assessment and

limitation for completing in such assessment as provided

under Section 33 of the Act. The respondent authorities

cannot be allowed to circumvent the limitation provision for

completing audit assessment by permitting resort to the

powers of summary adjustments under Section 27 which are

peculiar in nature and are available only in case where notice

under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act has been issued

to a dealer.”

16. The above quoted judgment also clearly held that the authorities

also cannot be allowed to circumvent the limitation provisions for

completing audit assessment by permitting recourse to powers of summary

adjustments under Section 27 of the TVAT Act. Similarly, in the instant case

the Scheme of the MVAT Act, 2003 providing for the 5-year period of 2026:MLHC:1107-DB

Page 18 of 21

limitation under Section 57 of the MVAT is also to be applied in respect of

Section 39 of the Act. The respondents’ arguments based on J.K. Cottons

Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., (supra) about specific provisions

prevailing over general provisions in fact, support the case of the petitioner

and the specific requirement cannot be ignored or read down.

17. Added to the above, it is also noted that Section 35(3) expressly

provides for issuance of notice only to dealers “other than a registered

dealer” which makes the Scheme of the Act clear that registered dealers are

duty bound to file returns under Section 35(2) without notice, while

unregistered dealers may be required to file returns by a notice under Section

35(3). Section 39 applies scrutiny only to registered dealers “to whom notice

has been issued by the Commissioner under Section 35”, thus a registered

dealer cannot be issued notice under Section 35(3) as it excludes registered

dealers from its ambit. The only harmonious construction that can be

afforded, is that Section 39 scrutiny, would apply only to those registered

dealers who were previously unregistered and were brought under the tax

net by a notice under Section 35(3), and thereafter became registered, which

does not apply to the case of the petitioner, who was always registered and

had filed returns under Section 35(2), without any notice.

18. On the other issues i.e. the delegation of powers, Section 26

of the Act read with Rule 3 of the MVAT Rules, 2005 has mandated that the 2026:MLHC:1107-DB

Page 19 of 21

Commissioner “shall” delegate powers by a notification in the Official

Gazette. The respondents in this connection, have in the course of the

proceedings not placed on record any such notification published in the

Official Gazette delegating Section 39 powers to the respondent No. 3

(Superintendent of Taxes). The reliance placed on internal order and

circulars therefore, will not satisfy this statutory requirement.

Though a lot has been sought to be made out by the respondents to

rely on a notice dated 27.04.2017, to be a Section 35 notice, the same is

disregarded as the said notice was for production of Books of Accounts for

assessment purposes and not a notice to furnish returns, even if treated as

such, it will be invalid as Section 35(3) does not authorise issuance of notice

to registered dealers

19. In view of the clear findings with regard to jurisdiction and

from the facts as they reveal, that no proper notice was issued added with

the mandatory precondition of notice under Section 35 not being satisfied,

the writ petition is therefore, held to be maintainable as it meets the

exceptions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments,

such as Whirlpool Corporation (supra).

20. The other judgments placed by the parties though noted, in view

of the clear findings hereinabove, are not discussed or elaborated upon. 2026:MLHC:1107-DB

Page 20 of 21

21. Accordingly, for the reasons aforementioned, the instant writ

petition is allowed and the impugned Scrutiny Reports, Impugned Notices

for curing defects in tax return dated 08.03.2023 for quarter ending

30.06.2007, 08.03.2023 for quarter ending 30.09.2007, 08.03.2023 for

quarter ending 31.12.2007, 08.03.2023 for quarter ending 31.03.2008,

08.03.2023 for quarter ending 30.06.2008, 08.03.2023 for quarter ending

30.09.2008, 08.03.2023 for quarter ending 31.12.2008, 08.03.2023 for

quarter ending 31.03.2009, 08.03.2023 for quarter ending 30.06.2009,

08.03.2023 for quarter ending 30.09.2009, 08.03.2023 for quarter ending

31.12.2009, 08.03.2023 for quarter ending 31.03.2010, 13.03.2023 for

quarter ending 30.06.2010, 13.03.2023 for quarter ending 30.09.2010,

13.03.2023 for quarter ending 31.12.2010, 13.03.2023 for quarter ending

31.03.2011, 13.03.2023 for quarter ending 30.06.2011, 13.03.2023 for

quarter ending 30.09.2011, 13.03.2023 for quarter ending 31.12.2011,

13.03.2023 for quarter ending 31.03.2012, 13.03.2023 for quarter ending

30.06.2012, 13.03.2023 for quarter ending 30.09.2012, 13.03.2023 for

quarter ending 31.12.2012, 13.03.2023 for quarter ending 31.03.2013, for

quarter ending 13.03.2023 for quarter ending 30.06.2013, 13.03.2023 for

quarter ending 30.09.2013, 13.03.2023 for quarter ending 31.12.2013,

13.03.2023 for quarter ending 31.03.2014, 30.11.2023 for quarter ending

30.06.2014, 30.11.2023 for the quarter ending 30.09.2014, 30.11.2023 for 2026:MLHC:1107-DB

Page 21 of 21

quarter ending 31.12.2014, 30.11.2023 for the quarter ending 31.03.2014,

30.11.2023 for the quarter ending 30.06.2015, 30.11.2023 for the quarter

ending 30.09.2015, 30.11.2023 for the quarter ending 31.12.2015,

30.11.2023 for the quarter ending 31.03.2016, 30.11.2023 for the quarter

ending 30.06.2016, 30.11.2023 for the quarter ending 30.09.2016,

30.11.2023 for the quarter ending 31.12.2016, 30.11.2023 for the quarter

ending 31.03.2017, and 30.11.2023 for the quarter ending 30.06.2017 issued

by the Superintendent of Taxes, East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat in the

exercise of powers under Section 39 of the Meghalaya VAT Act, 2003, and

impugned referred Notices for the period from quarter ending 30.06.2007 to

quarter ending 30.06.2017, issued for curing of defects in tax returns, are

hereby set aside and quashed.

22. The writ petition stands closed and is accordingly disposed of.

(B. Bhattacharjee) (H.S. Thangkhiew)

JUDGE JUDGE

Meghalaya

01.10.2026

“V. Lyndem- AR-PS” 2026:MLHC:1107-DB