Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 25th April, 2025
M/S JAI OPTICAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sourabh Goel, Mr. AnkitGoel and Ms. Geetika Sharma, Advs.
Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Adv. for GNCTD.
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- M/s Jai Optical under Article226 and227oftheConstitution ofIndia, interalia, assailingthe impugned order dated 8th January 2025 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’) and impugned show causenotices dated24thSeptember 2023and30thMay 2024.
3. The Petitioner has challenged the repeated issuance of show cause notices by the Delhi Goods and Service Tax Department (hereinafter, ‘Department’)and challenges the impugned orderon the groundthatdespite a specific reply havingbeen placed on record thatthePetitioner was suffering from a stroke, the Department proceeded and passed the impugned order.
4. In this case, therearethree SCNswhich wereissued.In theshow cause notice dated 24th September, 2023, an order dated 29th November, 2023 was passed. The same was challenged in W.P. (C) 3823/2024 titled ‘Jai Optical v. Govt. of NCT ofDelhi & Ors.’ wherein theCoordinateBench ofthis Court passed the following order:
5. Subsequentto this,instead ofgiving a fresh hearingto thePetitioner, a second show cause notice dated 3rd May, 2024 was issued. The reply to the same was filed by the Petitioner on 16th May, 2024 and the demand was dropped on 5th June, 2024. Thereafter, a third show cause notice was issued on 30th May, 2024 in respect of which a reply was filed by the Petitioner on 30th May, 2024. A hearingnoticeis fixed in thismatter on3rd December, 2024. However, an adjournment was sought by the Petitioner by filing a reply on 23rd December, 2024 to the following effect:
6. As can be seen from the above reply, the Petitioner had sought an adjournment on the ground that Mr. Vikas Garg the Petitioner’s proprietor had suffered a brain strokeand wasnot in a positionfor a hearing. Insteadof considering the adjournment request, the Department passed the impugned order on 8th January, 2025 raisinga demand ofapproximately Rs.1.[5] crores.
7. The submission on behalf of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner has always been diligent and has been following up with the Department. The Petitioner has also been filing replies despite this being the position. Ld. Counsel submits that only due to medical grounds, the adjournment was sought and thesamewasnotgranted and theimpugned orderhasbeen passed.
8. Ms. Gupta, ld. Counselfor theRespondentsubmitsthat thesecondand thethird showcausenotices aremerely in continuationofthefirstshow cause notice. Since thesecond show causenotice was uploadedon a wrongtab the same was dropped and a third show cause notice was issued.
9. 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 havebeen considered emphatheticallyas thesamewasaccompanied with all the documents from Indraprastha Apollo Hospital.
10. When such requestsfor adjournmentaremadeon themedicalgrounds, obviously the Department is expected to consider the same and not proceed to pass orders.
11. In this view of the matter,theimpugned order dated 8th January, 2025 is set aside.
12. The Petitionershallbe afforded a hearing. Thehearingnoticeshallbe communicated to thePetitioneron theportaland after hearingthePetitioner, orders shall be passed in accordance with law.
13. This Court has not examined the merits of the matter.
14. The petitionis disposed ofin theseterms. All pendingapplications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE APRIL 25, 2025 dj/ck