Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the bail condition directing deposit of the remaining disputed input tax credit amount was harsh and unreasonable, and whether it should be modified to permit furnishing security other than cash or bank guarantee.
Analysis: The application sought modification of the bail condition requiring deposit of the remaining disputed amount as a precondition for bail. The Court noted that the applicant had already deposited a substantial part of the disputed amount, that the departmental enquiry was still pending, and that no complaint, recovery proceedings under sections 73 or 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, or provisional attachment under section 83 of that Act had yet been made. The Court also considered the principle that bail conditions must be reasonable, cannot be so onerous as to make bail illusory, and must maintain a proper balance between the accused's liberty and the interest of revenue. In these circumstances, directing cash deposit of the entire remaining amount was held to be unsustainable.
Conclusion: The bail condition was modified, and the applicant was permitted to furnish security equivalent to the remaining disputed amount, other than cash and bank guarantee.