Chinese National Involved In GST Evasion Granted Bail: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a Chinese national woman, Alice Lee accused of involvement in alleged Goods and Services Tax (GST) evasion by a Greater Noida–based LED display manufacturing company, holding that the offences are triable by a Magistrate, carry a maximum punishment of five years, and that the case is primarily founded on documentary evidence. The bench of Justice Samit Gopal allowed the bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 by Alice Lee @ Li Tengli, who has been in judicial custody since August 26, 2025 in connection with Case No. 40 of 2025 registered at the CGST Commissionerate police station, Gautam Budh Nagar. According to the prosecution, a complaint dated October 17, 2025 was lodged by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion), CGST, Gautam Budh Nagar alleging that M/s Tentech LED Display Pvt. Ltd. had clandestinely shifted its manufacturing activities from its declared principal place of business to an undeclared premises in Ecotech-VI, Greater Noida. It was alleged that the company imported components such as cabinets, modules, power supplies, cables, connectors and adapters and assembled them into complete “Visual Display Units/LED Display Units”. The department claimed that while the finished product fell under Chapter Sub-Heading 85287219 and attracted GST at 28%, the company mis-declared the goods as “cabinets” attracting only 18% GST, thereby causing a short payment of tax by 10%. The total evasion on this count for the financial years 2019–20 to 2024–25 was quantified at ₹88,80,751. The applicant, along with other individuals and the company, was arrayed as an accused. Counsel for the applicant argued that she was falsely implicated and had joined the company only on February 21, 2024. A letter of appointment recovered during investigation showed that she was engaged merely for security-related work at a fixed salary of ₹15,000 per month. It was further submitted that she is a woman with a three-year-old child and is entitled to the benefit of Section 480 BNSS. The defence also highlighted that the offences are triable by a Magistrate and carry a maximum punishment of five years, that a co-accused (Vinay Kumar) has already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of the High Court, and that the entire prosecution case rests on documentary and electronic evidence, leaving little scope for tampering. Opposing the plea, the Union of India and CGST authorities contended that the matter involves serious economic offences requiring a strict approach in bail matters. They also pointed out that the applicant is a foreign national whose visa has expired and alleged that she had earlier been involved in another criminal case, indicating misuse of liberty. The Court took note of a status report placed by the Union of India explaining that, under current Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines, undertrial foreign nationals whose presence is required in India for court proceedings may be granted an Entry Visa (X-Misc category) after due procedure. It was also recorded that the applicant had applied for visa services/extension on February 3, 2026 and the application was under process. After considering the rival submissions, Justice Samit Gopal observed that the applicant has remained in custody for more than five months, the case is based mainly on documents, the maximum punishment prescribed is limited, and a co-accused has already been enlarged on bail. In these circumstances, the Court held that continued incarceration of the applicant was not justified. Accordingly, the High Court directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to stringent conditions including regular appearance before the trial court, non-tampering with evidence, not leaving India without permission, and furnishing a certificate from the Chinese Embassy assuring her presence during trial. The Court further cautioned courts and government officers against the practice of mentioning names of judges while citing precedents in pleadings and orders, observing that only the case name, date, citation and relevant extract are required. Earlier Coverage In Li Tengli Case Also Read: Chinese Woman Held in Rs. 9 Crore GST Scam: Chats Reveal China Links; Meerut Court Hints at International Summons Also Read: ‘Difficult To Declare Arrest Illegal’: SC Disposes Petition Filed By Husband of Chinese National Accused In Rs. 9 Crore GST Scam Case Details Case Title: Alice Lee @ Li Tengli Versus UOI Case No.: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 41710 Of 2025 Date: 09/02/2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Jitendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel For Respondent: A.S.G.I., Dhananjay Awasthi Click Here To Read Order Read More: GST Weekly Flashback: 08 To 14 February 2026

Chinese National Involved In GST Evasion Granted Bail: Allahabad HC

Membership Required

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 12 AUGUST, 2026

Electrocution Compensation Claims Involving Disputed Facts Can’t Be Decided in Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Separate Pay Treatment for Re-employed CGIT Presiding Officers, Rejects 6th Pay Commission Parity Claim

High Courts Can’t Grant Post-Dismissal Arrest Protection in GST Pre-Arrest Bail Matters; S. 69 Arrest Order Must Be Communicated: Supreme Court

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 12 AUGUST, 2026

Electrocution Compensation Claims Involving Disputed Facts Can’t Be Decided in Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Separate Pay Treatment for Re-employed CGIT Presiding Officers, Rejects 6th Pay Commission Parity Claim

About us

Company

Categories