In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court set aside a ₹1.5 crore GST demand order against M/s Jai Optical, citing the department’s failure to consider a legitimate request for adjournment on medical grounds.
In the case titled M/s Jai Optical vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others [W.P.(C) 3823/2024 & CM. APPLS. 15701/2024], the Delhi High Court emphasized the need for tax authorities to act with empathy and fairness, particularly when genuine medical emergencies are involved.
Background of the Case
M/s Jai Optical, through its proprietor Mr. Vikas Garg, approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging a series of Show Cause Notices (SCNs) and an impugned GST demand order dated 8th January 2025.
The dispute began with an SCN issued in September 2023, which resulted in an adverse order. This order was previously challenged and remitted by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court for re-adjudication. Subsequently, a second SCN was issued in May 2024, and a proper response was submitted by the petitioner.
However, the authorities disregarded this response and issued a third SCN, for which a hearing notice was issued. The petitioner sought an adjournment citing medical grounds—specifically, that the proprietor had suffered a brain stroke and was under treatment at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital.
Despite furnishing valid medical documentation, the GST department proceeded to pass the impugned order on 8th January 2025, demanding ₹1.5 crore from the applicant.
Court’s Observations
The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta strongly criticized the department’s decision to proceed with the order without empathetically considering the medical emergency.
The Court observed:
“The medical ground which was stated on 23rd December 2024 ought to have been considered empathetically, as the same was accompanied with all the documents from Indraprastha Apollo Hospital. When such requests for adjournment are made on medical grounds, obviously, the Department is expected to consider the same and not proceed to pass orders.”
Final Verdict
The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 29.11.2023 and directed the GST Department to remit the case back to the proper officer for fresh adjudication. The officer has been instructed to:
-
Inform the applicant of any necessary documents or explanations.
-
Allow the applicant a fair opportunity for a personal hearing.
-
Pass a fresh speaking order in compliance with Section 75(3) of the CGST Act.
Key Takeaways
-
Tax authorities must give due consideration to adjournment requests supported by genuine medical documentation.
-
Procedural fairness and natural justice must be upheld, especially in cases involving high-stake tax demands.
-
The judiciary continues to act as a safeguard against arbitrary administrative actions under GST law.
This case sets a precedent for empathetic governance and fair treatment of taxpayers under GST proceedings, reaffirming the importance of due process and human consideration in administrative actions.