RAJASTHAN MEDICARE RELIEF SOCIETY vs. DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX

CW/3598/2023HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:42544-DB23 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, SANDEEP TANEJA3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment order and the consequent demand notice were liable to be quashed and set aside. The primary reasoning was the gross violation of the principles of natural justice due to the failure to provide the petitioner with a personal hearing, despite a specific request. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order did not even refer to the petitioner's request for a hearing, and the respondents failed to deny this in their reply or offer any explanation. While the revenue suggested an alternative remedy of appeal, the Tribunal declined to direct the petitioner to pursue that route, considering that the petitioner is a charitable body of the Government of Rajasthan and the fundamental principles of natural justice were severely breached. Consequently, the assessment order, demand notice, and all consequential orders, including penalty orders, were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh, reasoned assessment order by November 30, 2025, after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner at least seven working days in advance, and furnishing any relied-upon orders or judgments.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society, Pmb Hospital, Bikaner, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated February 8, 2023, and a consequent demand notice dated February 8, 2023. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing, despite a request made via email on January 19, 2023, which was acknowledged by the Department. The assessment order itself did not mention this request. The respondents, the Department of Income Tax and its various units, did not deny the petitioner's averment regarding the request for a personal hearing in their affidavit in reply, nor did they offer any explanation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated February 8, 2023, and the consequent demand notice dated February 8, 2023, are liable to be quashed and set aside on the ground that they were passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that a request for a personal hearing through video conferencing was made and acknowledged, but no hearing was granted. The assessment order failed to reference this request. The respondents' failure to deny this in their reply further supported the petitioner's claim. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal. However, the judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue regarding the violation of natural justice or the merits of the assessment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2025:RJ-JD:42544-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3598/2023 Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society, Pmb Hospital, Bikaner (Raj.) Through Dr. Pramod Kumar Saini S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Saini, Aged About 49 Years, Superinte4Ndent, Hospitals Affiliated To Pmb, Bikaner And Member Secretary, Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society, Pbm Hospital, Bikaner (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Department Of Income Tax, Through Assessment Unit, Bikaner (Raj.). 2. The Asst. Commissioner, Department Of Income Tax, Exemption Cell, Jodhpur (Raj.). 3. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Department Of Income Tax, New Assessment Unit, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, Nee Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Johari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Shubhankar Johari & Mr. Kamaljeet Meena For Respondents : Mr. K.K. Bissa Mr. G.S. Chouhan HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order 23/09/2025

Petitioner is impugning an assessment order dated 8th February 2023 and also consequent demand notice dated 8th February 2023. 2. One of the grounds raised is that assessment order has been passed without giving an opportunity of personal hearing. Counsel for petitioner submitted that a request for personal hearing was given through video conferencing, which was also acknowledged by Department vide email dated 19th January 2023, but no hearing was given, either personal or through video conferencing. We also (Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 05:17:08 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:41 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:42544-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-3598/2023] find that in assessment order there is not even a reference to the request made by petitioner for hearing.

Moreover, though there is an averment in petition about request for personal hearing through video conferencing and also reference to email dated 19th January 2023, in the affidavit in reply, there is not even a denial. There is no explanation either.

In the circumstances, without going into merits of the matter, assessment order and consequent demand notice are liable to be quashed and set aside.

Of-course, Mr. Bissa submitted that petitioner has an alternative remedy and it should file an appeal. We are not inclined to direct petitioner to take that route because; (a) petitioner is a charitable body of Government of Rajasthan and (b) principles of natural justice have been grossly violated by not giving a personal hearing to petitioner.

Consequently, we hereby quash and set aside assessment order dated 8th February 2023 and consequent demand notice dated 8th February 2023. 7. Since we have quashed and set aside the assessment order, all consequential orders, including demand notices and penalty orders are also quashed and set aside.

Assessing Officer (Jurisdictional Assessing Officer) shall pass a fresh assessment order on or before 30th November 2025. Before passing an order, which shall be a reasoned order, a personal hearing shall also be given to petitioner, notice whereof shall be communicated atleast seven working days in advance. If Assessing Officer is going to rely on any order or judgment or (Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 05:17:08 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:41 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:42544-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-3598/2023] judicial pronouncement of any Court or Tribunal, a list thereof shall also be made available to petitioner so that petitioner will be able to deal with/distinguish the same. If the same is unreported order or judgment, copy thereof shall be made available along with personal hearing notice.

Petition disposed.

10.

We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 3-pooja/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 05:17:08 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:41 AM)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →