Pre-deposit as a bail condition for alleged wrongful input tax credit was held excessive and set aside.

A pre-deposit of part of the alleged wrongful input tax credit could not be imposed as a bail condition because the allegation was to be examined through the statutory adjudicatory process under the CGST framework. In light of the earlier protection from arrest, the insistence on such a deposit was held excessive and unwarranted. The pre-deposit condition was set aside, and bail was to be granted on terms fixed by the trial court, but without any requirement to make that deposit. The request for additional time was also declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the condition requiring pre-deposit of a portion of the alleged wrongful input tax credit as a term for bail could be sustained.

Analysis: The allegation of wrongful input tax credit was treated as a matter for adjudication under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act through the statutory adjudicatory process. In the circumstances, and in view of the prior order protecting the petitioner from arrest, the insistence on a pre-deposit as a bail condition was found to be excessive and unwarranted. The request for further time was also declined.

Conclusion: The condition requiring pre-deposit was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be enlarged on bail on such terms and conditions as the trial court may impose, excluding the pre-deposit requirement.

---