2022 (5) TMI 790 - HC - GST

Seeking permission to travel abroad i.e. Dubai - period from 07.06.2022 to 30.06.2022 - HELD THAT - The petitioner has moved this application saying he never violated any condition set out in earlier orders, hence be granted permission on this occasion too - this application is coming up for the first time, hence learned counsel for the respondent intends to seek instructions. List on 19.05.2022.

Summary

Issues: Permission to travel abroad denied without reason

Analysis:
The petitioner filed an application seeking permission to travel to Dubai from 07.06.2022 to 30.06.2022. The petitioner's counsel argued that the permission had been granted twice before but was rejected without reason in the impugned order dated 19.02.2022. The impugned order did not mention the previous permissions granted on 03.03.2020 and 21.10.2021. The primary reason cited for disallowing permission was the involvement of the accused in a significant cheating case amounting to Rs.1,44,90,54,993.

Previous Permissions:
The court referred to an order dated 03.03.2020 where permission to travel to Dubai for six days was granted with specific conditions, including furnishing an FDR, providing addresses during the stay abroad, surrendering the passport upon return, and not committing similar offenses. Another permission was granted on 21.10.2021 due to genuine reasons related to family health and business purposes, subject to the previous conditions.

Current Application:
The petitioner contended that he had not violated any conditions from the earlier orders and requested permission for this trip as well. The respondent's counsel sought time to seek instructions as this application was being heard for the first time. It was noted that a previous application for travel from 07.05.2022 to 15.05.2022 was not availed due to the petitioner postponing the visit because the reply was not filed on time.

Conclusion:
The court scheduled the matter for further hearing on 19.05.2022 to consider the petitioner's application for permission to travel abroad. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with conditions set in previous orders and the reasons for denying permission based on the seriousness of the criminal charges against the accused.