Just a moment...
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 rejection of permission to travel abroad was justified in the facts of the case, having regard to the allegations of fraudulent availment of input tax credit, the penalties imposed in adjudication, and the apprehension that the petitioner may not return.
Analysis: The petitioner's request was considered against the settled principle that the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and can be restricted only by fair, reasonable and lawful procedure. The material on record did not show conduct suggesting that the petitioner was a flight risk or had previously violated the conditions of bail. The revenue's concern was founded primarily on the seriousness of the alleged offence and the magnitude of the adjudicated demand, but the Court held that the mere gravity of the allegations and the existence of penalties against corporate entities could not by themselves justify curtailment of the petitioner's liberty to travel, especially when the petitioner had shown roots in society and the prosecution had not demonstrated a credible basis for apprehending abscondence.
Conclusion: The refusal to grant permission to travel abroad was unsustainable, and the petitioner was entitled to permission to travel abroad subject to the conditions imposed by the Court.