Bombay HC Allows Businessman Accused in ₹399.92 Crore GST Fake Invoice Fraud to Travel Abroad [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court ruled in favour of a businessman, allowing him to travel abroad for business and family purposes, despite facing prosecution in a ₹399.92 crore GST fake invoice fraud case, holding that the right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The case arose from allegations that Daulat Samirmal Mehta, Managing Director of Twinstar Industries Ltd. and Originet Technologies Ltd., was involved in a ₹399.92 crore GST fake invoice fraud through bogus billing and wrongful availment of InputTax Credit (ITC).

He was arrested under Section 132(1)(b),(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, and later released on bail in 2021 with conditions including surrender of his passport. While penalties were imposed on associated companies, only a ₹1 lakh penalty was levied on Mehta personally.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the heavy penalties confirmed in the adjudication proceedings were against the companies, not against Mehta personally, who faced only a ₹1 lakh penalty. Stressing that Mehta has strong social roots and has complied with bail conditions, he argued that his fundamental right to travel abroad cannot be curtailed merely because corporate entities he directs owe large sums.

CBIC Waives Fee for Amendment or Cancellation of Export Documents in Force Majeure Cases [Read Order]

It was also submitted that the Magistrate erred in relying on the alleged ₹399.92 crore revenue loss and unfounded apprehensions of absconding, since no material evidence supported such fears.

On the other hand, the respondent counsel argued that given the huge financial implications of the alleged GST fraud, the Magistrate was fully justified in refusing permission to travel abroad. He stressed that although Mehta had filed an appeal against the penalty order, he had not complied with the statutory requirement of making a pre‑deposit and instead sought to bypass it by filing a writ petition.

Counsel also pointed out that allowing him to travel overseas would seriously prejudice the interests of the revenue.

After considering the matter, the High Court observed that personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to travel abroad, and restrictions must be fair, reasonable, and not arbitrary. The Court noted that Mehta had complied with bail conditions since 2021, had roots in society, and there was no material to suggest he posed a flight risk.

Quoting precedents such as Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Court held that denial of travel solely based on alleged revenue loss was unsustainable.

The bench, Justice N.J. Jamadar, held that petioner permitted to travel abroad for 10 days for business purposes to London, Paris, Italy, and Berlin and 8 days for a family vacation to Bali between 18 February and 31 March 2026.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates