- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court Grants Conditional Bail to Widow Allegedly Involved In GST Evasion Case
Supreme Court Grants Conditional Bail to Widow Allegedly Involved In GST Evasion Case The Supreme Court (SC) in the case titled Chhaya Devi (Petitioner) v. Union of India & Anr. (Respondent) granted the conditional bail to the widow allegedly involved in the Goods & Services Tax (GST) Evasion Case. The SC bench comprising of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, Indira Banerjee, and K.M...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Supreme Court Grants Conditional Bail to Widow Allegedly Involved In GST Evasion Case
The Supreme Court (SC) in the case titled Chhaya Devi (Petitioner) v. Union of India & Anr. (Respondent) granted the conditional bail to the widow allegedly involved in the Goods & Services Tax (GST) Evasion Case.
The SC bench comprising of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, Indira Banerjee, and K.M Joseph allowed the bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions-
- The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1 crore with the concerned authorities on or before 10 May 2021 and shall file appropriate proof in the Registry of this Court.
- The Undertaking shall be filed within five days.
The Court further directed that the petitioner shall be released on ad interim bail subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and to facilitate the cause the petitioner shall be produced before the Trial Court within three days from today.
The factual background of the case is that the petitioner is a widow with five daughters and that the business was being looked after by the Manager who was the in-charge of the business.
The Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that his client shall file an undertaking within five days to the effect that she shall not create any encumbrance with respect to the properties of the business as well as her personal properties till further orders and that his client will deposit the amount representing the admitted duty element.
The Allahabad High Court (HC) had rejected the bail application by stating that as the evasion of the duty is more than Rs. 5 crore, therefore, the offense alleged against the applicant is cognizable and non-bailable.
The HC held that the offense alleged against the applicant is an economic offense in which the evasion of duty is made against the applicant. The Court further noted that although the offense is punishable with imprisonment of five years yet the evasion of huge amounts of duty is a great loss to the Government Exchequer.
An appeal was filed against the said order of the HC before the Apex Court and it granted bail to the petitioner based on aforesaid conditions.