Case Details: Gorav Gupta Versus Directorate General of GST Intelligence (2025) 27 Centax 110 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
- S/Shri Sunil Dalal, Sr. Adv., Suresh Chaudhary, Rajiv Singh, Sandeep Sharma, Nikhil Beniwal, Ms Shipra Bali, Ms Riya Rana, Kunal Singhal & M.K. Kardam, Advs. for the Petitioner.
- Shri Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, who had been granted anticipatory bail by the trial court, was subjected to specific travel restrictions. Initially, the trial court imposed a condition requiring the petitioner to surrender his passport and prohibited him from leaving India without prior permission from the investigating authorities. This condition was later modified by the High Court, which allowed the petitioner to retain his passport but required him to seek prior permission from the trial court before traveling abroad. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued under Sections 122(3) and 122(1A) of the CGST Act, 2017. Upon final adjudication, it was determined that no criminal prosecution was recommended against the petitioner. In light of this, the petitioner sought further relaxation of the travel restriction, specifically requesting the removal of the requirement to seek prior permission from the trial court before traveling abroad. He argued that the condition had become redundant since no prosecution was being pursued. The petitioner contended that maintaining such restrictions was unwarranted and unjustifiably infringed upon his fundamental right to movement. The revenue authorities, while maintaining that departmental scrutiny persisted, did not oppose the modification as long as the petitioner was required to intimate the authorities before traveling abroad and provide his contact details.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble High Court held that since the SCN under Sections 122(3) and 122(1A) of the CGST Act had been adjudicated without recommending prosecution, the bail condition requiring the petitioner to seek prior permission from the trial court before international travel was no longer necessary. The court emphasized that bail conditions should be proportionate and should not impose undue hardship when no criminal proceedings are initiated. Consequently, the court modified the condition, ruling that instead of seeking prior permission from the trial court, the petitioner must now simply intimate the revenue authorities about his travel plans and provide his contact details, including the address of stay abroad.
