Delhi High Court - Orders
Abbott Healthcare Private Limited vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 September, 2023
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~69
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11624/2023 & CM APPL. 45324/2023
ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Jayant Mehtra, Sr. Adv.
with Mr.Ajay Bhargava,
Mr.Aseem Chaturvedi,
Mr.Milind Jain, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra,
CGSC, Ms.Kritika Sharma,
Adv. & Mr.Siddhant Gupta, GP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
ORDER
% 04.09.2023
1. Issue notice.
2. Notice is accepted by Mr.Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2.
3. Notice need not be issued to the respondent nos.3 to 5 as they are executing agencies of the orders passed by the respondent nos.1 and 2.
4. Let reply be filed within a period of four weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of four weeks thereafter.
5. The present petition inter-alia challenges the Impugned Demand Notices dated 02.09.2014 and 20.11.2019 issued by the respondent no.2 herein calling upon the petitioner to make the payment of Rs.78,60,315/- and Rs.1,31,00,829/- respectively alongwith interest. The respondent nos.3 to 5 have thereafter issued recovery notices based on the above demands, which have also been impugned in the present petition.
6. The above demands have been raised by the respondent nos.1 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 16:09:50 and 2 on basis of their contention that the petitioner herein has sold 'GARDENAL 60 Tablets' at a price higher than the price arrived under paragraph 13(3) of the Drugs Price Control Order, 2013 (in short, 'DPCO').
7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Impugned Demand Notices are liable to be set aside inasmuch as they have been issued in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. He submits that the representations given by the petitioner against the Impugned Demand Notices have not been considered by the respondent nos.1 and 2, nor was an opportunity of personal hearing granted to the petitioner before passing of the Impugned Notices.
8. He submits that the petitioner, on the notification of the subject drug under the DPCO on 14.06.2013, immediately issued instructions to its stockiest/chemists informing them of the revision in the price. He submits that therefore, all measures required by the petitioner were taken.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2, who appears on advance notice, submits that there is an unexplained delay in filing the present petition, with the Impugned Demand Notices having been issued on 02.09.2014 and 20.11.2019.
10. He further submits that the inquiry against the petitioner was initiated pursuant to the Show-Cause Notice dated 17.12.2013, which inter-alia called upon the petitioner to give requisite information with respect to the batch of subject drug manufactured and sold during the period in dispute, along with certificate from the Cost Accountant/Chartered Accountant. He submits that the petitioner failed to provide the same, leaving the respondent nos.1 and 2 with no option but to raise Impugned Demand. He submits that even after the impugned demand notice of 2019, the said information was not forthcoming from the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner, in fact, This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 16:09:50 admits that it had cleared/sold subject drug at a pre-revised price even after issuance of notices.
11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
12. The Impugned Demands are dated 02.09.2013 and 20.11.2019; while the present petition has been filed only now, in 2023. Merely making a representation against such demands, cannot extend the period of limitation nor can condone the delay of the petitioner in filing of the present petition. At the same time, a reading of the Impugned Order/Demand does not show any reason being given by the respondent no.2 for rejecting the representation of the petitioner. It is also the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the Impugned Demands were raised without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
13. Keeping in view the above circumstances, it is directed that subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.25 lacs with the respondent no.2 within a period of four weeks from today, there shall be a stay on the enforcement of the Impugned Demand Notices dated 02.09.2014 and 20.11.2019 and consequential Recovery Notices dated 22.02.2023, 28.04.2023, 20.07.2023, 07.08.2023 issued by the respondent nos.3 to 5 herein.
14. Needless to state that the deposit of the above amount shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner and/or the respondent nos.1 and 2.
15. List on 27th February, 2024.
16. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J SEPTEMBER 4, 2023/Arya/ss Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 16:09:50