TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enewed during the year 2014-15 vide proceedings dt. 17.07.2014; and that the said approval was renewed for a further period of three years effective from 22.03.2017 to 21.03.2020 vide proceedings dt. 22.03.2017. 3. The petitioner further contends that in terms of the renewal granted vide proceedings dt.17.03.2017, the petitioner was required to make an application for renewal before the expiry of current approval valid till 21.03.2020; that the petitioner applied 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 Gover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot cause any enquiry with the State Government as to whether the cancellation against the petitioner had been revoked, in spite of the petitioner stating in its reply that it is the process of getting permission again for Covid-19 treatment; and that if only the 1st respondent caused verification or enquiry, it would have come to know of the State Government granting permission to admit and treat Covid-19 patients by its proceeding dt.13.10.2020. Therefore, 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 princ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at there was no prescribed medicine to be administered, each of the persons affected by coronavirus disease had to be treated separately depending on the severity of the infection and the resultant complications. This had resulted in the hospitals charging high amounts from the patients admitted into hospitals and simultaneous protests from the public resulting in lodging of complaints against hospitals with the concerned State authorities 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 sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne which is prescribed, is satisfied. The 1st respondent further held that as the petitioner is barred by an order of the appropriate authority to cease-and-desist administering medical treatment, since, the hospital violated authorities binding directions to regulate the patient fee at the time of great distress, and ignoring the impugned order of the State Government in deciding a case of approval under the Act, would hence be 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 variou....