Case Details: Radhey Shyam vs. Assistant Commissioner (2026) 43 Centax 215 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- Surya Kant, CJI & Joymalya Bagchi, J
- S/Shri C. George Thomas, AOR, Vaibhav Sethi, Nizam Pasha, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Davinder Pal Singh, A.S.G., Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, Sanjay Tyagi, Praneet Pranav, Nikhil Aradhe, Advs., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee company was engaged in supplying taxable services, specifically for joining and enrolling members as direct sellers for consideration. It was alleged that the service tax payable on these taxable services had not been paid, and that GST returns had not been filed. The High Court declined bail, considering the gravity of the allegations, the petitioners’ involvement in other cases, and the delay in joining the proceedings. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an appeal. The matter was then placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the assessee company had paid a substantial part of the tax liability. The Court further noted that the petitioners had remained in custody for more than four years. Additionally, one of the petitioners had previously been granted interim bail due to the precarious health condition of his wife. It was held that continuing the custody of the petitioners would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the Court directed their release on bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. However, the Court also directed that the attachment of the movable and immovable assets, including the bank accounts of the assessee company, the petitioners, their family members, and other associated persons, should continue.
List of Cases Reviewed
-
- Radhey Shyam v. Assistant Commissioner — (2026) 43 Centax 54 (P & H) — Reversed [Para 5]
