Adjournment on Medical Grounds Must Be Considered Before Passing GST Orders

Case Title: M/s Jai Optical v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 5300/2025 & CM APPLs. 24175/2025, 24176/2025, 24177/2025
Category: Natural Justice / Adjudication under GST
Date of Judgement: 25th April, 2025
Relevant Sections: Section 75(3) of CGST Act, 2017

Facts of the Case (Ref. Para 2–7)

• The Petitioner, M/s Jai Optical, challenged the impugned order dated 8th January 2025 and repeated show cause notices (SCNs) issued by the Delhi GST Department (Para 2).

• Three SCNs were issued:

  • 24th September 2023 → culminated in an order dated 29th November 2023, which was later quashed by Delhi HC in W.P.(C) 3823/2024 with a direction for re-adjudication (Para 4).

  • 3rd May 2024 → replied on 16th May 2024; demand dropped on 5th June 2024 (Para 5).

  • 30th May 2024 → reply filed the same day, hearing fixed for 3rd December 2024. Adjournment was sought on 23rd December 2024 citing proprietor’s brain stroke, with supporting medical documents (Para 6).

• Despite this, the Department passed the impugned order on 8th January 2025 raising a demand of approx. ₹1.5 crores (Para 6–7).

Question(s) in Consideration (Ref. Para 3, 6, 10)

1. Whether repeated SCNs and impugned order were sustainable when medical grounds for adjournment were raised?

2. Whether the Department violated principles of natural justice by not considering adjournment supported by medical records?

Observations of the Court (Ref. Para 9–10)

• The Petitioner had been diligently filing replies and cooperating with proceedings (Para 9).

• The request for adjournment on medical grounds supported by hospital documents should have been considered empathetically (Para 9).

• Passing an order without accommodating such requests violates fairness in adjudication (Para 10).

Judgement of the Court (Ref. Para 11–14)

• The impugned order dated 8th January 2025 was set aside (Para 11).

• The Department directed to issue a fresh hearing notice through portal and pass orders only after providing the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing (Para 12).

• The Court clarified that it has not examined the merits of the tax demand (Para 13).

• Petition disposed of accordingly (Para 14).

Between Fine Lines (5-Line Simplified Outcome)

• Delhi HC quashed a GST demand order of ₹1.5 crores.

• The order was passed without considering an adjournment request citing proprietor’s brain stroke.

• Court held that medical grounds must be sympathetically considered.

• Department directed to give a fresh hearing and re-decide.

• The case reaffirms that natural justice prevails over procedural rigidity.

Summary of Referred Cases

Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”