9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (9) TMI 482 - HC - CustomsMedical equipment Exemption to hospitals in process of being established Requirement of free treatment for outdoor/indoor patients and reasonable charges prescribed under Para 2(a) of table appended to Notification No. 64/88-Cus. Held that - as per Delhi Government certificate, the Petitioner had complied with the conditions of Notification No. 64/88 even as on that date. - There is no requirement in the notification to fulfill the obligation even after its repeal - up to the time of the impugned order in November 2000, the correctness or the adequacy of the data furnished by the Petitioner was never questioned. Again as regards the Petitioner s performance of its obligations under Notification No. 64/88, up to 31st October 2000, i.e. beyond the date of its repeal, there is no reason shown why the report dated 3rd January 2001 of the Director (Administration), Lok Nayak Hospital of the GNCTD should not be accepted. - Exemption not to be withdrawn
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the withdrawal of the Customs Duty Exemption Certificate (CDEC) by the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS). 2. Compliance with the conditions of Notification No. 64/88. 3. Impact of the repeal of Notification No. 64/88 on the obligations of the petitioner. 4. Procedural fairness and natural justice in the withdrawal of the CDEC. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Withdrawal of the CDEC: The primary issue was the legality of the DGHS's order dated 20th November 2000, which withdrew the CDEC issued to the petitioner. The order was challenged on the grounds that the petitioner had complied with the conditions of the CDEC and that the withdrawal was unjustified. 2. Compliance with the Conditions of Notification No. 64/88: The petitioner had provided detailed information regarding the treatment of patients, including free and concessional treatments, as required under Notification No. 64/88. The DGHS had initially accepted the returns for the years 1992, 1993, and 1994, and the Delhi Government's report of 3rd January 2001 indicated compliance with the conditions even up to that date. The petitioner argued that it had fulfilled the obligations under the notification, and the DGHS had no grounds for withdrawal. 3. Impact of the Repeal of Notification No. 64/88: Notification No. 64/88 was repealed on 1st March 1994. The court had to determine whether the obligations under the notification continued beyond its repeal. The court concluded that the obligation to comply with the conditions of Notification No. 64/88 continued only until the notification was in force and could not be enforced after its repeal. Therefore, the DGHS could only seek compliance up to 1st March 1994. 4. Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice: The court found that the DGHS had not followed the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not given a copy of the report prepared by the State Government, which was relied upon in the impugned order. Additionally, there was no show cause notice issued before the withdrawal of the CDEC, which violated procedural fairness. Conclusion: The court held that the impugned order dated 20th November 2000 by the DGHS withdrawing the CDEC was unsustainable in law. The petitioner had complied with the conditions of Notification No. 64/88 up to its repeal on 1st March 1994, and there was no obligation to comply beyond that date. The court set aside the DGHS's order and allowed the writ petition with costs of Rs. 5,000 to be paid by the respondents to the petitioner within four weeks.
|
