A division of the Supreme Court led by Justices Krishna Murari and BV Nagarathna set aside a bail requirement imposed by the High Court that required a person accused of fraudulently claiming an input tax credit to deposit Rs. 70 lakhs, the alleged amount of the ITC that was wrongfully claimed.

The petitioner argued that there had been no final evaluation about the improper use of the ITC under the GST Act. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the appellant is required by law to pay the amounts in question.

In a fair statement, Additional Solicitor General of India KM Nataraj said that a condition like that cannot be put on a bail. The bench overturned the bail requirement after taking these things into account. 

The appellant has appealed the Chhattisgarh High Court's judgment of June 21, 2022, granted bail to the appellant with conditions. One of the requirements was that, within 45 days of his release, the appellant deposit a sum of Rs. 70 lakhs under protest in favor of the Principal Commissioner, CGST, Raipur.

The appellant argued that the requirement to deposit Rs. 70 lakhs within 45 days of the date of release as a precondition condition for the bail is unjustifiable because the first information report concerned the incorrectly claimed Rs. 6,95,32,472 in input tax credit.

Case Title: Subhash Chauhan Versus UOI
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL  NO. 186  /2023

Appearance of Advocates:-

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Himanshu Tyagi, AOR
 Mrs. Poonam Sharma., Adv.
 Mr. Moksh Tyagi, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G.
 Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
 Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv.
 Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv.
 Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv.

 Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR
 Mr. Devashish Tiwari, Adv.
 Ms. Tanya Verma, Adv.