TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Strikes Down Bail Conditions in GST Case, Ruling Financial Restrictions Premature Without Conclusive Legal Determination</h1> <h3>Rajesh Kumar Dudani Versus The State Of Uttarakhand & Anr.</h3> SC overturned HC of Uttarakhand's bail rejection in GST-related case. Allowed anticipatory bail without deposit conditions, emphasizing that legal ... Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - appellant submitted that there is no final assessment made under GST Act and unless such determination is made, the appellant cannot be said to be under a legal liability to make any payment much less deposit any amount as a condition for grant of anticipatory bail. HELD THAT:- In an identical matter in Criminal Appeal No. 186/2023, Subhash Chouhan Vs. Union of India, this Court vide Judgment dated 20.01.2023 [2023 (1) TMI 1168 - SC ORDER] set aside the order passed by the High Court imposing a condition of deposit while granting bail to the appellant therein. It is provided that in case the appellant is arrested, he shall be liable to be released forthwith, subject to such terms and conditions which the Trial Court/Investigating agency may deem fit and proper to impose. Appeal allowed. Issues:1. Anticipatory bail rejection by High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital.2. Imposition of conditions for anticipatory bail.3. Legal liability for payment under GST Act.4. Precedents regarding deposit conditions for bail.5. Grant of anticipatory bail without conditions.Detailed Analysis:1. The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital's judgment and order dated 22.09.2022, which rejected the anticipatory bail of the appellant in connection with summons issued by Deputy Commissioner State GST Dehradun under Section 70 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. The appellant sought anticipatory bail arguing that custodial interrogation was unnecessary due to the nature of evidence available. The Additional Solicitor General opposed bail and suggested the appellant deposit half of the revenue loss to the state exchequer. The appellant contended that without a final assessment under the GST Act, no legal liability existed for payment or deposit.3. The Supreme Court noted the arguments and record before considering the case. Referring to a similar matter in Criminal Appeal No. 186/2023, where a deposit condition was set aside, the Court emphasized that imposing such conditions while granting bail was not appropriate to protect revenue interests. This view was reaffirmed in another case, Criminal Appeal No. 523/2023, leading the Court to conclude that the appellant deserved anticipatory bail without any imposed conditions.4. Based on the precedents and reasoning from previous judgments, the Supreme Court held that the appellant should be granted anticipatory bail without the conditions suggested by the Additional Solicitor General. The Court stated that if the appellant is arrested, he should be released immediately, subject to terms deemed fit by the Trial Court or Investigating agency.5. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeal. Any pending applications were disposed of accordingly. The decision highlighted the importance of granting anticipatory bail without imposing conditions in cases where legal liability for payment is not conclusively determined under the relevant laws.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
