TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Input Tax Credit ('ITC') by M/s. Alfaraz' Infra Projects Private Limited, on the basis of bogus invoices without actual receipt of goods or services. Eventually, upon finding the complicity of the petitioner, who is the Managing Director of the Twinstar Industries Limited and Originet Technologies Limited Company, the petitioner came to be arrested for the alleged offences punishable under Section 132 (1)(b),(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 4. It was inter alia alleged that, the fraud was to the tune of Rs. 399.92 crores. Prosecution was recommended against the corporate entities M/s. Twinstar Industries Limited, M/s. Boostmetric Solutions Limited, M/s. Originet Technologies Limited, and M/s. Snowcem Paints Private Limited, for fraudulent availment and passing off ineligible ITC by raising bogus invoices, without actual supply of goods and services, resulting in loss to the public exchequer. 5. The petitioner was released on bail by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 15th February, 2021 in Writ Petition No. 471/2021. The petitioner was inter alia directed to deposit his passport before the Court. 6. The petitioner filed an application bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner filed an additional affidavit indicating the future itinerary for which he intended to travel abroad. It was inter alia asserted that, the petitioner is the Managing Director of the M/s. Originet Technologies Limited, M/s. Redtech Technologies Private Limited and M/s. Twinstar Industries Limited and he was required to travel to Dubai, London, Paris, Italy and Berlin for the purpose of the expansion of business and explore new opportunities and revive the business activities. The petitioner also asserted that, he intended to travel to Bali for a family vacation during the period 02nd March, 2026 to 12th March, 2026. 12. The Respondent No. 1 has opposed the prayers in the petition by filing an affidavit-in-reply and an additional affidavit. It was inter alia contended that, the petitioner is facing prosecution in connection with serious economic offences having substantial implications on revenue. The adjudication has culminated in confirmation of huge demand and penalty running into Rs. 399.92 Crores. In the intervening period, on 14th May, 2025, sanction for prosecution has also been accorded and, accordingly, a prosecution complaint against the petitioner has already been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g regard to the huge penalty imposed on the companies; of which the petitioner is a Managing Director, the petitioner may make himself scarce once he is permitted to travel abroad. 16. Evidently, the fact that the petitioner has been arraigned for the offences punishable under Section 132(1)(b),(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, with the allegations of having availed ITC by issuing bogus invoices without actually supplying the goods or services entailing loss to the public exchequer to the tune of Rs. 399.92 Crores, and the fact that in the adjudication proceeding, penalties have been imposed on the petitioner and the abovenamed companies, weighed with the learned Magistrate in rejecting the application for permission to travel abroad. Whether this material is sufficient to deprive the petitioner of the right to travel abroad ? 17. Before adverting to deal with the legal position which governs the prayer of an accused to travel abroad, in exercise of the fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, it is necessary to note that, the material on record does not attribute such conduct to the petitioner which would show that, the petitioner poses a flight r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble. 21. In the case of Satish Chandra Verma Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2019 SCC OnLine 2048, expanding the scope of the right to travel abroad, the Supreme Court exposited that, the right to travel abroad also extends to private life. The observations of the Supreme Court in the Para No. 5 are instructive and extracted below:- "5. The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly show that this freedom is a genuine human right. (See : Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248). In the said judgment, there is a reference to the words of justice Douglas in Kent V. Dulles 357 US 116 (1958) which are as follows: "Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance." (emphasis supplied) 22. The aforesaid being the nature of the right to trave....