IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

262 CRM-M-73806-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.01.2026.

MANOJ BANSAL ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS DIRECTOR GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE (DGGI), ROHTAK.

...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, and Ms. Ramneek K. Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Goel, Special Public Prosecutor, DGGI, with Ms. Geetika Sharma, Advocate, and Ms. Himanshi Gautam, Advocate, for the respondent.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for seeking quashing of order dated 15.07.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner, seeking permission to go abroad, has been dismissed.

2 Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Director of M/s Nikita Industries Pvt. Ltd., a duly incorporated company and is a registered assessee under the Goods and Services Tax regime. The company is engaged in the manufacturing of pure lead and lead alloys and has its manufacturing unit in the State of Haryana. On the basis of certain intelligence inputs, the respondent-Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) conducted search proceedings on 27.03.2018 at the business premises of the company as well as at the residential premises of the petitioner, alleging wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). Pursuant to the search proceedings, the petitioner was arrested under the provisions of Section 69 of the CGST Act and was arrayed as an accused in Complaint Case No. IV(6) DGGI/RRU/INV/22/2018-19, filed under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c), punishable under Section 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, alleging that the company fraudulently availed ITC benefit of approximately Rs.15.44 crores on the basis of invoices issued by alleged non- existent or fictitious supplier firms. The petitioner was arrested on 07.12.2020 and remained in judicial custody till 16.03.2021, whereafter he was granted regular bail vide final order dated 28.09.2021, passed in CRM-M No. 2869 of

2021 filed by the petitioner.

3 Notice of motion in the present case was issued on 24.12.2025 and thereafter, the respondent-DGGI has filed the reply.

4 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) contends that the petitioner filed an application for going abroad as he received business proposals and invitations from international companies to understand the business operations and explore potential partnerships resulting in investment of USD 05 million. He contends that while passing the impugned order dated 15.07.2025, the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the demand of tax had been stayed after filing of statutory appeal by the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner cannot be denied the permission to travel abroad merely on the basis of apprehensions and due to the pendency of trial. He contends that despite passage of more than 04 years, no prosecution witness has been examined. He contends that the foreign company has issued a fresh Approval Letter dated 16.12.2025 whereby the visit has been rescheduled during January -February 2026. He contends that the petitioner intends to go abroad for a period of 20 days commencing w.e.f. 10.02.2026 to 28.02.2026. He contends that to protect the interest of the petitioner company, he be permitted to leave India for the said period.

5 Counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand, supports the impugned order and submits that there is a possibility of the petitioner evading the process of law, if he is allowed to travel abroad. However, he is not able to controvert that the right to travel abroad is a part of the fundamental right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India

6 I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended along with the pres