Gorav Gupta vs. Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi), Delhi

Facts

The Petitioner, Gorav Gupta, sought modification of an anticipatory bail condition imposed on July 7, 2022, by the Trial Court. Initially, the condition required surrendering his passport and obtaining permission to leave India. This was modified on December 20, 2023, to require prior permission from the Trial Court for overseas travel. Subsequently, on April 15, 2024, the Delhi High Court further modified this to require permission from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) where the complaint was to be filed. The Petitioner argued that a Show Cause Notice under Sections 122(3)/122(1A) of the CGST Act, 2017, issued to him, was adjudicated on August 27, 2024, by the Joint Commissioner, CGST, Delhi, with no criminal prosecution recommended. Therefore, he contended, the condition restricting his movement should be vacated or modified.

Held

The Court modified the bail condition imposed by the Order dated December 20, 2023. Instead of requiring the Petitioner to seek prior permission from the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) or Trial Court before travelling abroad, the Petitioner is now directed to intimate the Department/Respondent about his travel plans. Furthermore, he must furnish his contact number and the address where he intends to reside during his stay abroad. The Court found that given the adjudication of the Show Cause Notice without recommending criminal prosecution, the stringent condition of seeking prior permission was no longer necessary, but some level of intimation was appropriate to keep the respondent informed. The primary issue concerning the modification of the travel restriction was decided in favor of the Petitioner, albeit with a modified reporting requirement.

Key Issues

1. Whether the bail condition requiring prior permission from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for international travel should be modified or vacated, considering that no criminal prosecution has been recommended or initiated against the Petitioner under the CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that since the adjudication of the Show Cause Notice under Sections 122(3)/122(1A) of the CGST Act, 2017, by the Joint Commissioner, CGST, Delhi, did not recommend any criminal prosecution, the basis for the bail condition restricting his travel abroad has ceased to exist. He contended that this restriction infringes upon his fundamental right of freedom of movement and should be removed or substantially modified. Respondent's Arguments: The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Delhi, while acknowledging that an application for filing a complaint against the Petitioner was preferred, submitted that the condition could be modified. They proposed that instead of seeking prior permission, the Petitioner could be directed to intimate the Department every time he travels abroad.