Allahabad High Court Objects To CGST Dept Mentioning SC Judges' Names In Affidavit; Grants Bail To Chinese Woman In Tax Evasion Case

The Court further directed the deponent officer and the Presiding Officer of the court concerned, who had similarly mentioned the names of the judges in the rejection order of the first bail application, to be cautious in future.

The Single Judge asked them to ensure that the names of the Hon'ble Judges are not mentioned while referring to the judgments.

"…it is only the names of the parties, date of decision, the details of the case/citation and the relevant text are relevant which needs to be quoted and not the names of the Hon'ble Judges", the bench observed.

This is the second incident within approximately two weeks in which the High Court has objected to the practice of courts or officers mentioning the names of the Judges of the Supreme Court while relying on precedent.

Read about Allahabad HC January 27 order: 'Totally Uncalled For': Allahabad High Court Deprecates Practice Of Trial Judges Citing Names Of Supreme Court Judges In Orders

BRIEFLY PUT, the applicant (Alice Lee) sought bail in connection with a Case under Sections 132(1)(d), 132(1)(e), 132(1)(f), 132(1)(l), and 132(1)(i) CGST Act, 2017.

She was arrested in August last year on allegations that she is associated with M/S Tentech LED Display Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in the clandestine manufacture of “Visual Display Units”.

It was alleged that the company and the accused were assembling imported inputs, including Cabinet, Module, Power Supply Cable, Connector and Power Adapters, at an undeclared place.

It was categorically alleged by the department that the taxpayer evaded GST by mis-declaring finished goods as 'Cabinets' (which attracts 18% GST) instead of 'Visual Display Units' (which attracts 28% GST).

The evasion of tax arising from this misclassification for the financial years 2019-20 to 2024-25 was calculated to be Rs. 88,80,751.

Prior to this bail application, the applicant's husband had approached the Supreme Court in September last year, where the top court had provided that the applicant should approach the HC for bail before the court concerned, to be decided on its own merits.

Before the HC, her counsel argued that the applicant was falsely implicated and had only been appointed in the company on February 21, 2024, for security work and she was on a fixed salary of Rs. 15,000.

It was argued that the offences are triable before a Magistrate and carry a maximum penalty of five years. Parity was also sought with co-accused Vinay Kumar, who had been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of the High Court

Opposing the plea, the counsels for the CGST and Union of India referred to various Supreme Court judgments to argue that economic offences constitute a class apart and require a different approach.

They highlighted that the applicant was a habitual offender and had previously been arrested by the ATS, Lucknow, in a separate case.

Crucially, with respect to her status as a foreign national, the Union of India submitted that although her visa had expired, she had applied for an extension (X-Misc Visa) on February 3, 2026, which is granted to foreign nationals facing criminal trials.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, Justice Gopal observed that the investigation was conducted by the CGST Department, the quantum of evasion had been calculated and a complaint had already been filed in the matter.

Taking into account that the applicant is a lady with a minor child, the circumstances of the case, the nature of the evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, the bench granted her bail.

However, she has been directed to file a certificate before the trial court of the Chinese Embassy stating that she will appear on each and every date before the trial court concerned in the proceedings.

It has also been directed that she shall not leave the country without permission of the trial court.

Insofar as the release, place of stay, and movement of the applicant are concerned, she has been directed to inform the trial court, through her Embassy, of these matters every two months and to give an undertaking that she will keep the trial court informed of her whereabouts.

Before parting with the matter, the Court issued a stern warning against the naming of Judges in the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Gautam Budh Nagar, the deponent.

Similarly, the Court also objected to the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Meerut, for mentioning the names of the Hon'ble Judges presiding over the Bench in the first bail order