The Delhi High Court has directed that the passport of an accused facing prosecution in a GST case be renewed for the regular period of 10 years, modifying a trial court order that had restricted renewal to three years. 

The bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee has observed that the existing safeguards imposed as part of the accused’s bail conditions were sufficient to prevent him from leaving the country without judicial permission.

The proceedings arose from an investigation by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Delhi Zonal Unit, concerning alleged availment of ineligible Input Tax Credit.

Buy Now: JurisHour Ultimate Legal Research Combo – 4 Premium E-Magazines at an Unbeatable Price

According to the prosecution, the petitioner/assessee allegedly claimed approximately ₹7.72 crore in ineligible ITC under the CGST Act on the strength of fictitious purchase invoices issued by another entity.

The alleged invoices related to computer-related supplies, including scanners, webcams and LED televisions. During a visit by DGGI officers on September 21, 2020, Smartgen Infra was allegedly found to be non-existent at its registered address.

Subsequently, during a search of the registered premises of Modi Infosol on November 25, 2020, allegedly fictitious invoices amounting to approximately ₹42.94 crore were seized. Statements of the two directors were recorded and both were arrested on November 27, 2020 under Section 69 of the CGST Act.

The trial court granted bail to the accused on January 8, 2021. Among the conditions imposed was that the accused could not leave India without the permission of the Court and was required to deposit his passport with the Investigating Officer.

The bail order also required the accused to cooperate with the investigation, refrain from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, avoid similar offences and appear before the Court on every date of hearing.

The passport was subsequently released by the trial court in February 2024. While releasing it, the Court specifically clarified that the accused could not leave India without prior written permission. The Investigating Officer, immigration authorities and the Foreigners Regional Registration Office were directed to ensure compliance with the condition.

The passport was due to expire in March 2026. Since criminal proceedings were pending, the petitioner sought permission from the trial court for renewal of the passport.

The trial court permitted renewal but limited the validity to three years instead of the regular 10-year period. It also required the petitioner to file an affidavit undertaking not to travel abroad without permission of the concerned Court and to submit a self-attested copy of the renewed passport.

Aggrieved by the three-year limitation, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that limiting the passport to three years would cause unnecessary hardship because his business involved manufacturing and importing, requiring frequent overseas travel for exhibitions, meetings and conferences.

The petitioner also informed the Court that he was specifically expected to travel to the United States for an IT-related CES event scheduled in January 2027.

Reliance was placed on earlier decisions of the Delhi High Court concerning passport renewal during the pendency of criminal proceedings. The petitioner also pointed out that he had never misused the liberty granted to him and had previously travelled abroad after obtaining permission from the Court.

The DGGI opposed the request, arguing that the alleged loss to the Government exchequer was approximately ₹7.72 crore, whereas only ₹7 lakh had been deposited by the petitioner and the co-accused under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act.

The Department contended that the substantial outstanding liability created a possibility that the petitioner could abscond or flee the country if granted a passport with a longer validity period.

The High Court, however, did not find sufficient justification for restricting the passport renewal to three years.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee noted that the petitioner was already permitted to travel abroad, but only after obtaining prior permission from the Court under the conditions imposed at the time of bail.

The Court further noted that when the passport had earlier been released in February 2024, additional safeguards had been put in place by directing the Investigating Officer, immigration authorities and FRRO to ensure compliance with the restriction on foreign travel.

The High Court therefore held that the existence of a valid passport—whether renewed for three years or for the regular 10-year period—did not by itself remove the safeguards governing the petitioner’s foreign travel.

An important factor considered by the High Court was that the petitioner had stated that his entire family, residence, business and several immovable properties were situated in India.

The Court observed that these circumstances significantly reduced the apprehension that the petitioner would abscond.

Consequently, the Court found no plausible reason, substantive harm or reasonable apprehension warranting restriction of the passport’s validity to only three years.

The Delhi High Court modified the trial court’s February 2, 2026 order and directed that the petitioner’s passport be renewed for the regular period of 10 years.

The Court did not remove the conditions governing foreign travel. It expressly directed that all other terms and conditions imposed by the trial court would continue to remain binding on the petitioner.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: GSTAT Disposes of Just 83 Cases as Appeals Cross 75,000 Mark; Only 5,819 Registered