The Supreme Court has issued a stern warning to Central GST defaulters who have been exploiting a legal loophole to avoid depositing security amounts mandated for bail. In a strongly worded order, the apex court condemned what it described as a growing “tactic” among accused individuals—agreeing before high courts to deposit substantial amounts as a condition for bail, only to later approach the Supreme Court challenging those very conditions as unfair.
The bench of Justice K V Viswanathan and Justice N Kotiswar Singh highlighted a case where an accused, after securing bail from the Madras High Court by undertaking to deposit â‚ą2.5 lakh within 10 days, moved the Supreme Court arguing that such a requirement was excessive and should be struck down. The court noted that such arguments aim to sidestep the original commitment and misuse the judicial process.
“This strategy forecloses high courts from assessing the bail plea on its merits and turns the focus toward challenging the financial condition before us. Such behavior undermines the integrity of the legal process,” the bench observed.
The court emphasized that while an accused person’s right to liberty is fundamental, it must be balanced against the sanctity of judicial procedures. “We cannot permit litigants to play ducks and drakes with the courts,” it said, cautioning against the trend of counsels giving undertakings in high courts without proper authority, and then retracting before the Supreme Court.
The bench further declared that such manipulation of conditional bail requirements—especially those involving financial deposits—is unacceptable and would not be tolerated. “If there is an objection to the condition of deposit, it must be raised at the outset. Attempting to bypass it later by crying foul is not just improper, it’s dishonest,” the court stated.
However, acknowledging personal circumstances raised by the accused—whose wife was pregnant and who was responsible for caring for his elderly father—the court directed the high court to review the matter afresh and consider interim relief if warranted.
The judgment sends a clear signal to tax defaulters and legal practitioners alike: abusing procedural leniency will attract serious consequences, including possible cancellation of bail and return to custody.
Case Details
Case Title: Kundan Singh Vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise
Case No.: SLP(Crl) No. 009111 – / 2025
Date: 23-06-2025
Counsel For Petitioner: ASWATHI M.K.
