9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 1641 - HC - GSTChallenge to repeated issuance of SCN by the Delhi Goods and Service Tax Department and impugned order - challenge on the ground that despite a specific reply having been placed on record that the Petitioner was suffering from a stroke the Department proceeded and passed the impugned order - HELD THAT - Considering the overall facts there is no doubt that the Petitioner has been continuously following up with the Department and filing replies diligently. The medical ground which was stated on 23nd December 2024 ought to have been considered emphathetically as the same was accompanied with all the documents from Indraprastha Apollo Hospital. The impugned order dated 8th January 2025 is set aside - Petition disposed off.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter include:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of repeated show cause notices and procedural compliance by the Department Relevant legal framework and precedents: The GST law mandates that before passing any demand order, the Department must issue a show cause notice and provide the taxpayer an opportunity to be heard, including filing replies and personal hearings as per Section 75(3) of the CGST Act. The principles of natural justice require that the Department must consider the replies filed by the taxpayer on merits and not dismiss them summarily. Precedents emphasize that orders passed without applying mind to the replies or without affording a personal hearing are liable to be set aside. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the initial show cause notice dated 24th September 2023 was challenged before a Coordinate Bench, which found that the Proper Officer had erroneously recorded that no reply was filed and no personal hearing was attended by the Petitioner, despite a detailed reply being on record. The Court held that this indicated a failure to apply mind and warranted remand for re-adjudication. This establishes the principle that the Department cannot proceed to pass orders without properly considering the taxpayer's submissions. Key evidence and findings: The Petitioner had submitted detailed replies to the show cause notices, and the Coordinate Bench had already set aside the impugned order dated 29th November 2023 for non-consideration of these replies. The Department's subsequent issuance of a second and third show cause notice was explained as corrective action due to procedural errors (uploading on a wrong tab). Application of law to facts: The Court found that the Department's procedural lapses, including failure to consider replies and improper issuance of notices, violated the statutory mandate and principles of natural justice. Treatment of competing arguments: The Department argued that the second and third show cause notices were continuations of the first and that the second was dropped due to technical error. The Court accepted this explanation but emphasized that procedural correctness and fairness must be maintained. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Department's failure to consider the Petitioner's replies and to provide a proper hearing was a serious procedural irregularity requiring setting aside of impugned orders and remand. Issue 2: Consideration of medical grounds for adjournment and impact on passing of impugned order Relevant legal framework and precedents: The law recognizes that requests for adjournment on genuine medical grounds must be considered with compassion and fairness. The right to be heard includes the right to seek adjournments when a party is incapacitated due to illness. Courts have consistently held that passing orders without considering such requests amounts to denial of natural justice. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Petitioner's proprietor had suffered a brain stroke and submitted medical documents from a reputed hospital along with a request for a four-week adjournment. The Court observed that the Department did not consider this request and proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 8th January 2025, demanding Rs. 1.5 crores. The Court held that such medical grounds ought to have been considered empathetically and that the Department's failure to do so was contrary to the principles of natural justice. Key evidence and findings: The Petitioner's reply dated 23rd December 2024 clearly stated the medical condition and attached supporting hospital records. Despite this, the Department passed the demand order without granting the adjournment or hearing the Petitioner. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that when a party is medically incapacitated, the Department must defer proceedings and provide an opportunity for hearing once the party is able to participate. The failure to do so rendered the impugned order unsustainable. Treatment of competing arguments: The Department did not provide a substantive reply to the medical adjournment request, relying instead on procedural continuity of notices. The Court rejected this approach as insensitive to the medical facts and inconsistent with fair procedure. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the impugned order passed without considering the medical adjournment request was liable to be set aside and that the Petitioner must be granted a fresh hearing. Issue 3: Direction for fresh hearing and adjudication Relevant legal framework and precedents: Under the GST law and constitutional mandates, if an order is set aside for procedural irregularity, the matter must be remitted to the proper authority for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing. The fresh order must be speaking and reasoned, complying with statutory timelines. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court directed that the Petitioner be afforded a hearing, with the hearing notice communicated through the official portal. It emphasized that after hearing the Petitioner, the Department must pass a fresh order in accordance with law, ensuring compliance with Section 75(3) of the CGST Act. Key evidence and findings: The previous Coordinate Bench order also mandated re-adjudication with opportunity of personal hearing. The current Court reiterated this and added the specific direction to consider the medical adjournment request. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the requirement of procedural fairness and statutory compliance to ensure that the Petitioner's rights are protected in the fresh adjudication. Treatment of competing arguments: The Department's failure to provide a fresh hearing despite earlier directions was noted as a lapse. The Court's direction seeks to rectify this. Conclusions: The Court ordered remand for fresh adjudication after hearing the Petitioner, setting aside the impugned order. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "The observation in the impugned order dated 29.11.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply filed by the petitioner is a detailed reply, however the impugned order records that 'neither filed any reply nor appeared in person'. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply submitted by the Petitioner on merits and then form an opinion. He merely held that no reply has been filed which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner." "When such requests for adjournment are made on the medical grounds, obviously the Department is expected to consider the same and not proceed to pass orders." "The impugned order dated 8th January, 2025 is set aside. The Petitioner shall be afforded a hearing. The hearing notice shall be communicated to the Petitioner on the portal and after hearing the Petitioner, orders shall be passed in accordance with law." Core principles established:
Final determinations:
|
