GST Dept Expected To Empathetically Consider Assessees' Requests To Adjourn Personal Hearing On Medical Grounds: Delhi High Court

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta said the Department should not proceed to pass adverse orders in such matters.

The development comes in a petition filed by an optical firm, claiming that impugned order raising demand of approximately Rs.1.5 crores was passed by the Delhi GSt Department despite requesting for an adjournment of personal hearing on the ground that its proprietor suffered from a brain stroke and was not in a position for a hearing.

In this case, there are three show cause notices were were issued. First in September 2023 which culminated into an order. The same was challenged before a Coordinate Bench of the High Court which ordered re-adjudication.

Subsequent to this, a second SCN was issued in May 2024 and a reply to the same was filed by the Petitioner but the demand was dropped. Thereafter, a third SCN came to be issued in respect of which a hearing notice was issued to the Petitioner. An adjournment was then sought on behalf of the Petitioner-firm's proprietor on medical grounds but the Department passed the impugned order raising demand.

Department submitted that the second and the third show cause notices are merely in continuation of the first show cause notice. Since the second show cause notice was uploaded on a wrong tab the same was dropped and a third show cause notice was issued.

At the outset, the High Court observed there is no doubt that the Petitioner has been continuously following up with the Department and filing replies diligently.

Thus, it held that the medical ground of the proprietor “ought to have been considered emphathetically” particularly considering that it was supported by hospital records.

“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. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 8th January, 2025 is set aside. The Petitioner shall be afforded a hearing.” the Court ordered.

Appearance: Sourabh Goel, Mr. Ankit Goel and Ms. Geetika Sharma, Advs. for Petitioner; Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Adv. for GNCTD.

Case title: M/s Jai Opticals v. GNCTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 503

Case no.: W.P.(C) 5300/2025

Click here to read order