They Took Eight Years To Adjudicate. That Alone Sank The Order.
A tax demand against a soldiers' group insurance scheme was set aside without the Court reaching any of the substantive questions. The delay was enough on its own.
The Court set aside and quashed the order on the ground of delay alone. An unexplained eight-year delay in adjudication made the order arbitrary and an offence against Article 14. The existence of a statutory appeal was no bar, because the question — the purport of Section 73(4B) — was basically a question of law.
- Section 73(4B) sets a period for adjudication, and what happens when it is ignored was the whole case.
- Delay can decide a case by itself. The Court expressly declined to reach the other issues.
- An alternative remedy is not an automatic bar where the point is one of law and the order is arbitrary.
- Article 14 is the hook. An arbitrary order offends it, whatever the statutory route.
- Court
- High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong
- Citation
- 2026:MLHC:961-
- Case
- WP(C) No. 377 of 2025
- Decided
- 1 September 2026
- Outcome
- Writ petition allowed; adjudication order quashed on delay
What was left undecided
Substantive challenges had been raised on jurisdiction, on whether the petitioner qualifies as ‘Government’ under Section 66D(a), and on whether salary deductions for the scheme would amount to ‘consideration’.
There was also the question whether the department could extend the limitation period by alleging wilful suppression, in the absence of any material facts proving a deliberate act of evasion.
The Court held that its finding on the unexplained eight-year delay meant it did not need to go into any of them.
Why the alternative remedy did not stand in the way
Where a statutory appeal exists, constitutional courts impose a self-restraint on exercising powers under Article 226. The department pressed that here.
But on the issue actually decided — delay — the basic question was the purport of Section 73(4B) and its interpretation placed alongside the facts. That made it essentially a question of law.
The impugned order, apart from being arbitrary, therefore also offended Article 14 of the Constitution.
The order
The procedural challenge on delay was the most compelling reason, and on that ground alone the order of 12 March 2025 was set aside and quashed.
The writ petition was allowed to that extent and disposed of, without the Court deliberating on the other issues.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can a tax order be quashed only because it took too long?
Yes. This order was set aside on the ground of an unexplained eight-year delay alone, without the Court reaching the merits.
Does having an appeal available stop a writ petition?
Not where the question is essentially one of law and the order is arbitrary, as the Court held here.
Attacking an adjudication order that took years to come
- Date the show cause notice and the order, and put the gap in the first paragraph of the petition.
- Ask the department to explain the delay on affidavit; unexplained is the operative word.
- Meet the alternative-remedy objection by showing your point is one of statutory interpretation, not fact.
- Plead Article 14 alongside the statute, so arbitrariness is on the record as an independent ground.
Source. High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong, 2026:MLHC:961-, WP(C) No. 377 of 2025, decided 1 September 2026 by . This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in