9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner on notice of the said allegations, to offer its explanation. This action of the first respondent in passing the impugned order by traversing beyond the show cause notice in our view is a violation of principles of natural justice causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. On this sole ground itself the impugned order is liable to be set aside. We are also at a loss to understand the basis on which the 1st respondent has concluded that the treatment for coronavirus would be covered by respiratory disease, in as much as even after more than a year, no fool proof medical treatment/ vaccination is discovered and the research is continuing. Even the World Health Organization (WHO) or the Indian Council of Medical Research, which is the apex body in India for the formulation, coordination and promotion of biomedical research and one of oldest research bodies in the world established in the year 1911, have not notified the SARSCov-2 (corona virus) to be only a respiratory disease. On the other hand some of the other serious symptoms associated with Corona virus are chest pain or pressure, sore throat, loss of taste or smell, fever, dry cough and loss of speech or m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on 13.01.2020 for renewal of the approval for a further period; and that the petitioner hospital was confirming to the conditions prescribed under proviso (ii)(b) to clause(viii) of sub-section (2) to section 17 of the Act, and Rule 3A (1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (for short Rules ). 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner filed application seeking renewal of the approval well in advance, the same was not renewed before the last date specified in the approval granted vide proceedings dt. 17.03.2017 and the same is kept pending; and that in the meantime Covid-19 pandemic had hit the nation; the petitioner had been granted approval for providing treatment for Covid-19 patients by the State Government, Public Health and Family Welfare Department, vide G.O. Rt. No. 248 HM FW(D) Department, Dt. 15.06.2020; and that the State Government revoked the permission granted to treat Covid-19 patients on 03.08.2020. 5. The petitioner further contends that while it was pursuing the matter with the State Government in relation to revocation of permission granted to provide treatment to Covid-19 Patients and the matter was under active consideration, the 1st resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, it is contended that since the basis for issuance of show cause notice by the first respondent is now non-existent, the impugned order holding the petitioner ineligible for approval under Section 17 of the Act, has no legs to stand and is liable to be set aside. 9. Per contra, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that though the show cause notice only refers to the cancellation of mandate for Covid 19 treatment as the basis, the impugned order passed deals with the explanation filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice and therefore, it cannot be alleged to have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 10. It is also contended by the respondents that if the petitioner had brought to the notice of the 1st respondent, the permission granted again by the State Government for providing Covid-19 treatment vide proceedings dt 13.10.2020, the same would have been taken into consideration. As the petitioner did not bring the said fact of the State Government having issued permission under proceedings dt.13.10.2020, no fault can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for taking action against such hospitals. 16. Based on complaints received from certain section of people, the State Medical and Health Officer on 03.08.2020 revoked the permission granted to the petitioner for providing Covid-19 treatment. The petitioner, upon invocation of permission by the State Medical authorities, submitted its explanation on 04.08.2020 and sought for recalling the order of the petitioner dt. 03.08.2020. While the said explanation offered by the petitioner was under consideration by the State authorities, the 2nd respondent issued notice dt. 12.10.2020 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the cancellation order of the State Government be not considered for deciding the application for recognition under section 17 (2) (ii) (b) of the Act. The contents of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner reads as under: 2. Kindly refer to your application u/s. 17(2)(ii)(b) of the income tax act, 1961, for recognition of M/s. The Deccan Hospitals (A unit of Park Health Systems Pvt. Ltd) by the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. In this regard, cancellation of the mandate for COVID treatment has been issued by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e imprudent. Further the 1st respondent also came to conclusion that excessive, exorbitant, and unconscionable pricing while being a misconduct and/or an offence under other laws also renders the petitioner ineligible for approval under Section 17 of the Act. 19. A reading of the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent along with the show cause notice on one hand shows that the same was issued as a chain reaction to the order of State Government dt. 03.08.2020, which on the other hand deals with determination of coronavirus disease as a respiratory disease and the same being a prescribed disease under clause(a) of sub rule (2) of rule 3A of the Rules. 20. Firstly, a reading of the impugned order would indicate that it has taken into consideration various issues which have not been put to the petitioner in the show cause notice dt. 13.10.2020. The only ground mentioned in the show cause notice is with regard to the State Government revoking the mandate given for Covid treatment be considered for deciding application of the petitioner for renewal of approval under Section 17(2)(ii)(b) of the Act, and nothing else. The impugned order, apart from dealing with the revocation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
