The Bombay High Court has permitted a businessman accused in a massive Goods and Services Tax (GST) fraud case involving alleged fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) of nearly ₹399.92 crore to travel abroad, holding that the right to travel overseas forms part of the fundamental right to personal liberty under the Constitution of India.
The bench of Justice N. J. Jamadar has quashed an order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Explanade, Mumbai, which had earlier rejected his request for permission to travel abroad for business and personal purposes.
The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Mumbai Zonal Unit, had initiated an investigation into alleged fraudulent availment and utilization of Input Tax Credit by M/s Alfaraz Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. through bogus invoices without actual supply of goods or services.
During the investigation, authorities alleged that Mehta—who is associated with several companies including Twinstar Industries Limited and Originet Technologies Limited—was involved in the fraudulent scheme. He was arrested for offences punishable under Section 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The alleged fraud was estimated to have caused a loss of ₹399.92 crore to the public exchequer. Prosecution was recommended against several corporate entities, including Twinstar Industries Limited, Boostmetric Solutions Limited, Originet Technologies Limited and Snowcem Paints Private Limited, for allegedly issuing bogus invoices and passing ineligible ITC.
Mehta was granted bail by the High Court in February 2021 with conditions including the deposit of his passport before the court.
In 2024, Mehta sought return of his passport and permission to travel abroad. Although the High Court subsequently ordered the return of his passport, it required him to obtain permission from the trial court before leaving the country.
Thereafter, Mehta applied to travel to the United Kingdom, Dubai and the United States for business purposes for about 60 days. The Magistrate rejected the application, citing the seriousness of the alleged fraud, the magnitude of financial implications, and the possibility that the accused might abscond.
The trial court also noted that penalties had been imposed in adjudication proceedings, including ₹1 lakh on Mehta personally and over ₹2 crore each on certain companies where he served as Managing Director.
Mehta contended that the denial of permission to travel abroad was unjustified, arguing that the major penalties were imposed on corporate entities rather than on him personally. He further submitted that there was no evidence suggesting he was likely to evade the process of law.
On the other hand, the prosecution opposed the request, emphasizing that prosecution had been sanctioned and a criminal complaint had already been filed. Authorities argued that allowing the petitioner to travel abroad could prejudice the interests of revenue and create the risk of non-appearance during trial.
The High Court emphasized that personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to travel abroad, referring to landmark Supreme Court judgments such as Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.
The Court observed that restrictions on international travel for an accused are primarily meant to ensure the person’s presence during trial and prevent evasion of justice. However, such restrictions must be justified by material indicating a genuine flight risk.
Justice Jamadar noted that since Mehta’s release on bail in 2021, there had been no allegation that he violated bail conditions or attempted to evade legal proceedings. The Court also held that the mere gravity of allegations or the magnitude of alleged tax loss could not by itself justify denial of permission to travel abroad.
Importantly, the Court remarked that the recovery of penalties imposed on corporate entities cannot be used as a basis to curtail the individual’s right to travel overseas.
The High Court granted Mehta permission to travel abroad subject to several conditions. The Court permitted him to travel for 10 days to London, Paris, Italy and Berlin for business purposes, and undertake an 8-day family vacation to Bali within the period between February 18 and March 31, 2026.
The Court directed the petitioner to deposit ₹1 lakh as security, provide a detailed itinerary, furnish his passport copy, and submit contact details of his overseas stay to the trial court and investigating officer.
Case Details
Case Title: Daulat Samirmal Mehta Versus Assistant Director
Citation: JURISHOUR-353-HC-2026(BOM)
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 3111 Of 2025
Date: 16/02/2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Bresh Pathak and Anjali Joshi
Counsel For Respondent: Jitendra B Mishra
