https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787530 Refusal to permit travel abroad was set aside where the petitioner was on bail and there was no material showing a real risk of absconding; the court balanced the fundamental right to travel within Articles 14 and 21 against the gravity of allegations and ongoing prosecution and held that pendency alone does not justify absolute refusal. The opinion recognised statutory mechanisms to recover penalties and endorsed proportionate safeguards - security deposit, undertaking, itinerary disclosure and furnishing passport copy to investigating authorities - as reasonable measures to protect the revenue and the trial process while allowing travel. en-us Mon, 16 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Mar 2026 08:39:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787530 Refusal to permit travel abroad was set aside where the petitioner was on bail and there was no material showing a real risk of absconding; the court balanced the fundamental right to travel within Articles 14 and 21 against the gravity of allegations and ongoing prosecution and held that pendency alone does not justify absolute refusal. The opinion recognised statutory mechanisms to recover penalties and endorsed proportionate safeguards - security deposit, undertaking, itinerary disclosure and furnishing passport copy to investigating authorities - as reasonable measures to protect the revenue and the trial process while allowing travel. Case-Laws GST Mon, 16 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787530