Daulat Samirmal Mehta vs Assistant Director, Director General ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1713 Bom

Bombay High Court

Daulat Samirmal Mehta vs Assistant Director, Director General ... on 16 February, 2026

Author: N. J. Jamadar

Bench: N. J. Jamadar

2026:BHC-AS:7989

                                                                                         WP 3111-25.DOC

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 3111 OF 2025


               Daulat Samirmal Mehta
               Age: 68 years, Occ: Business,
               Residing at Flat No. 301, Aangan,
               N.S. Road 2, Vile Parle (W),
               Mumbai - 400 056.                                                      ...Petitioner
                     Versus

               1. Assistant Director,
                  Directorate General of Goods and
                  Services Tax Intelligence,
                  Zonal Unit Mumbai, 1st & 3rd Floor,
                  N.T.C. House, 15 N.M. Road,
                  Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400 001.

               2. State of Maharashtra
                                                                                 ...Respondents
               Mr. Brijesh Pathak & Ms. Anjali Joshi, for the Petitioner.
               Mr. Jitendra B Mishra a/w Mr. Rupesh Dubey i/by Ms.
                     Sangeeta Yadav, for the Respondent No. 1.

                                     CORAM                   :      N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                     RESERVED ON             :      02nd FEBRUARY 2026
                                     PRONOUNCED ON :                16th FEBRUARY 2026

               JUDGMENT:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the

consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("the BNSS, 2023"), assails the legality,

WP 3111-25.DOC

propriety and correctness of an order dated 02 nd May, 2025

passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Explanade, Mumbai, whereby an application preferred by the

petitioner for permission to travel abroad for a period of 60 days

for business purpose, came to be rejected.

3. The Respondent No. 1 initiated an investigation into an

incident of alleged fraudulent availment and utilization of Input

Tax Credit ('ITC') by M/s. Alfaraz' Infra Projects Private Limited,

on the basis of bogus invoices without actual receipt of goods or

services. Eventually, upon finding the complicity of the

petitioner, who is the Managing Director of the Twinstar

Industries Limited and Originet Technologies Limited Company,

the petitioner came to be arrested for the alleged offences

punishable under Section 132 (1)(b),(c) of the Central Goods

and Services Tax Act, 2017.

4. It was inter alia alleged that, the fraud was to the tune of

Rs. 399.92 crores. Prosecution was recommended against the

corporate entities M/s. Twinstar Industries Limited, M/s.

Boostmetric Solutions Limited, M/s. Originet Technologies

Limited, and M/s. Snowcem Paints Private Limited, for

fraudulent availment and passing off ineligible ITC by raising

WP 3111-25.DOC

bogus invoices, without actual supply of goods and services,

resulting in loss to the public exchequer.

5. The petitioner was released on bail by a Division Bench of

this Court by an order dated 15 th February, 2021 in Writ Petition

No. 471/2021. The petitioner was inter alia directed to deposit

his passport before the Court.

6. The petitioner filed an application before the learned

Magistrate seeking return of the passport with permission to

travel abroad. By an order dated 29th July, 2024, the learned

Magistrate rejected the application.

7. The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court in

Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 18501/2024. By an order

dated 06th January, 2025, a Division Bench of this Court was

persuaded to quash and set aside the said order and direct the

return of the petitioner's passport. The Division Bench had then

noted that, though a period of three and half years had elapsed

since the release of the petitioner on bail, complaint had not

been filed by the authorities. The Division Bench further

clarified that, in the event the petitioner intended to travel

overseas, he shall seek permission of the Trial Court before his

departure. The petitioner was directed to file an undertaking

WP 3111-25.DOC

before the Trial Court that he would not travel overseas without

the permission of the trial Court.

8. The petitioner preferred an application before the trial

Court seeking permission to travel to U.K., Dubai and U.S.A. for

a period of 60 days i.e. 30 days in the month of May and 30

days in the month of August, for business purpose. The

application was resisted by the Respondent No. 1.

9. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate was

persuaded to reject the application. The learned Magistrate

noted that, in the adjudication proceeding penalty of Rs.

1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) was imposed on the petitioner

and penalties of Rs. 2,12,86,980/- (Rupees Two Crore Twelve

Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty) and Rs.

2,13,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Thirteen Lakhs), respectively,

were imposed, on the M/s. Boostmetric Solutions Limited and

M/s. Twinstar Industries Limited, of which the petitioner was

the Managing Director. The petitioner was also found guilty of

misconduct under Item (2) of Part IV of the Schedule r/w

Section 22 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 Act.

Recording that the alleged fraudulent activities entailed huge

loss of Rs. 399.92 Crores to the State exchequer, the offence

WP 3111-25.DOC

being grave in nature and the possibility of the abscondence,

the learned Magistrate rejected the application.

10. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has again invoked the writ

jurisdiction of this Court.

11. Since the period for which the petitioner intended to travel

abroad has expired, the petitioner filed an additional affidavit

indicating the future itinerary for which he intended to travel

abroad. It was inter alia asserted that, the petitioner is the

Managing Director of the M/s. Originet Technologies Limited,

M/s. Redtech Technologies Private Limited and M/s. Twinstar

Industries Limited and he was required to travel to Dubai,

London, Paris, Italy and Berlin for the purpose of the expansion

of business and explore new opportunities and revive the

business activities. The petitioner also asserted that, he

intended to travel to Bali for a family vacation during the period

02nd March, 2026 to 12th March, 2026.

12. The Respondent No. 1 has opposed the prayers in the

petition by filing an affidavit-in-reply and an additional affidavit.

It was inter alia contended that, the petitioner is facing

prosecution in connection with serious economic offences

having substantial implications on revenue. The adjudication

WP 3111-25.DOC

has culminated in confirmation of huge demand and penalty

running into Rs. 399.92 Crores. In the intervening period, on

14th May, 2025, sanction for prosecution has also been accorded

and, accordingly, a prosecution complaint against the petitioner

has already been filed before the Competent Court. Since a

criminal prosecution is now pending, and the presence of the

petitioner is required for the conduct of the trial in the said case

involving large revenue implications, the petitioner cannot be

permitted to travel abroad. An apprehension is also expressed

that, the petitioner may evade the process of law by not

returning to India.

13. I have heard Mr. Brijesh Pathak, the learned Counsel for

the petitioner, and Mr. Jitendra Mishra, the learned Special

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1.

14. Mr. Pathak, the learned Counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that, the resistance to the prayer of the petitioner for

permission to travel abroad is completely unsustainable. The

alleged penalties have been confirmed against the companies

and not the petitioner. Only the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-

(Rupees One Lakh) is imposed on the petitioner. It is not the

case that, the petitioner has no roots in the society. The

WP 3111-25.DOC

fundamental right of the petitioner to travel abroad cannot be

trampled upon by contending that, the orders of adjudication

running into the Crores of Rupees are yet to be complied with

qua the corporate entities, of which the petitioner is a Director.

Therefore, the learned Magistrate committed an error in law in

rejecting the application on the premise that, the alleged fraud

entailed loss of Rs. 399.92 Crores to the revenue. It was further

submitted that, the apprehension on the part of the prosecution

that, the petitioner may flee away, if permitted to travel abroad,

and, which weighed with the learned Magistrate, was wholly

unfounded. There was no material to lend credence to such

unfounded apprehension.

15. In contrast, Mr. Mishra the learned Special Counsel for the

Respondent, would submit that, in the circumstances of the

case and especially having regard to the huge financial

implications, the learned Magistrate was fully justified in

declining to grant permission to travel abroad. Mr. Mishra laid

emphasis on the fact that, though the appeal was preferred

against the order adjudicating penalty, yet, the petitioner has

not made the pre-deposit. Instead, to circumvent the statutory

obligation to make a pre-deposit, a writ petition is filed before

this Court. In this backdrop, if the petitioner is permitted to

WP 3111-25.DOC

travel abroad, the interest of the revenue would be seriously

prejudiced. It was urged that, having regard to the huge penalty

imposed on the companies; of which the petitioner is a

Managing Director, the petitioner may make himself scarce once

he is permitted to travel abroad.

16. Evidently, the fact that the petitioner has been arraigned

for the offences punishable under Section 132(1)(b),(c) of the

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, with the allegations

of having availed ITC by issuing bogus invoices without actually

supplying the goods or services entailing loss to the public

exchequer to the tune of Rs. 399.92 Crores, and the fact that in

the adjudication proceeding, penalties have been imposed on

the petitioner and the abovenamed companies, weighed with the

learned Magistrate in rejecting the application for permission to

travel abroad. Whether this material is sufficient to deprive the

petitioner of the right to travel abroad ?

17. Before adverting to deal with the legal position which

governs the prayer of an accused to travel abroad, in exercise of

the fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, it is

necessary to note that, the material on record does not attribute

such conduct to the petitioner which would show that, the

WP 3111-25.DOC

petitioner poses a flight risk. Incontrovertibly, a penalty of Rs.

1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) has been imposed on the

petitioner, in his individual capacity. The penalties of Rs.

2,12,86,980/- (Rupees Two Crore Twelve Lakhs Eighty Six

Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty) and Rs. 2,13,00,000/-

(Rupees Two Crores Thirteen Lakhs), respectively, have been

imposed on the M/s. Boostmetric Solutions Limited, and M/s.

Twinstar Industries Limited, the companies of which the

petitioner is stated to be the Managing Director. Can the right of

the petitioner to travel abroad be subjugated to and made

conditional upon the recovery of the penalty imposed upon the

companies of which the petitioner is stated to be a Managing

Director, is the question that comes to the fore.

18. Indisputably, the Respondent No. 1 can resort to the

proceedings under GST Act, 2017 to recover the penalty imposed

on the companies. On first principles, the revenue instead of

initiating the measures for the recovery of the penalty imposed

on those companies, would not be justified in opposing the

prayer for permission to travel abroad.

19. Personal liberty is not confined to the constricted sense of

freedom from arrest and detention. The expression "personal

WP 3111-25.DOC

liberty" is of wide amplitude and subsumes in its fold right to

travel abroad and return to India without hindrance. The

personal liberty can be deprived only according to the procedure

established by law. In the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D.

Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi & Ors. 1, a

Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court enunciated that, the

right to travel abroad is a fundamental right. In the absence of

any law regulating or depriving a person of such right, denial of

the passport or withdrawal of the passport, already issued,

would infringe Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

20. In the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India 2,

the Supreme Court emphasized that, "personal liberty"

guaranteed under Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and

includes the right to travel abroad. No person can be deprived of

his right to travel abroad unless there is a law made by the

State, prescribing the procedure for depriving a person of the

said right. Moreover, the procedure by which such right is

sought to be deprived must also be fair and reasonable and

cannot be arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable.

1 AIR 1967 SC 1836 2 AIR 1978 SCC 597

WP 3111-25.DOC

21. In the case of Satish Chandra Verma Vs. Union of India &

Ors.3, expanding the scope of the right to travel abroad, the

Supreme Court exposited that, the right to travel abroad also

extends to private life. The observations of the Supreme Court

in the Para No. 5 are instructive and extracted below:-

"5. The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self- determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly show that this freedom is a genuine human right. (See : Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248). In the said judgment, there is a reference to the words of justice Douglas in Kent V. Dulles 357 US 116 (1958) which are as follows:

"Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance."

(emphasis supplied)

22. The aforesaid being the nature of the right to travel

abroad, when the said right is sought to be curbed by the orders

passed by the Court to ensure the availability of the accused for

trial and prevent the prospect of the accused fleeing away from

justice, the Court needs to be alive to the fact that, the denial of

3 2019 SCC OnLine 2048

WP 3111-25.DOC

permission to travel abroad impinges upon the fundamental

right of the accused. The restrictions on the accused leaving the

country without the permission of the Court, are primarily

meant for securing the presence of the accused at the trial and

to ensure that the accused does not evade the process of justice.

In addition to the nature and gravity of the offence and the stage

of the proceeding, the attendant circumstances and conduct of

the accused do bear upon the exercise of jurisdiction. The

purpose for which an accused seeks permission to travel abroad

is a factor which also weighs in.

23. On the aforesaid touchstone, reverting to the facts of the

case, it is imperative to note that, it was not the stand of the

Respondent No. 1 that since the release of the petitioner on bail

(in the year, 2021), the acts and conduct on the part of the

petitioner are such as to betray an animus to evade the process

of justice. It is not alleged that, the petitioner did not comply

with any of the conditions or did not participate in the

proceedings, whenever required.

24. Indeed there are allegations to the effect that, there was a

fraud in availing ITC which entailed the loss to the tune of Rs.

399.92 Crores to the state exchequer. However, that cannot the

WP 3111-25.DOC

sole basis for rejecting an application seeking permission to

travel abroad. The guilt of the accused is yet to be adjudicated.

In a situation of the present nature, where the material on

record indicates that, the petitioner has roots in the society so

as to bring him back to India, the denial of permission to travel

abroad, on the basis of an apprehension which prima facie does

not appear to be borne out by the material on record, cannot be

sustained.

25. Resultantly, the petition deserves to be allowed.

26. Hence, the following order:-

::ORDER::

I) The Writ Petition stands allowed.

II) The petitioner is permitted to travel abroad;

i] for a period of 10 days for business

purpose to London, Paris, Italy and Berlin.

ii] for a period of 8 days for family vacation

to Bali, during the period 18 th February, 2026

to 31st March, 2026, subject to following

conditions: -

WP 3111-25.DOC

(a) The petitioner shall deposit an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- in the trial Court, by way of

security.

(b) The petitioner will be entitled to refund of the

security deposit after he returns to India and

reports to the trial Court.

(c) The petitioner shall also furnish, on an

affidavit, the details of the itinerary, particularly

the dates on which the petitioner would leave, and

return back to India, and the address/es at which

the petitioner would be residing at different places

and contact number/s thereat.

(d) The petitioner shall also furnish a self attested

copy of the passport alongwith the affidavit, to be

filed before the learned Magistrate.

(e) Copy of such affidavit and self-attested copy of

the passport be also furnished to the Investigating

Officer.

(f) All concerned to act on an authenticated copy ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL of this order.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]