Mentioning Names Of Judges While Giving Reference To Judgments In Counter Affidavit Totally Uncalled for: Allahabad High Court Warns CGST Officer

The High Court also asked the Registrar (Compliance) to communicate the order to the District and Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar and the Court concerned for information, compliance and necessary action.

The High Court was considering a bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with a case registered under Sections 132(1)(d), 132(1)(e), 132(1)(f), 132(1)(l), 132(1)(i) of the CGST, Act, 2017.

The Single Bench of Justice Samit Gopal stated, “Before parting with the matter, it is very important to refer to para 27(A) of the counter affidavit in which the deponent while relying to numerous judgments of the Supreme Court and High Court has referred to a judgment in the case of Ram Narain Popli Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation on 14.01.2023 and after the same he has mentioned the names of Hon'ble Judges of the Apex Court who have decided the said case. Identically in para 27 (D) again after giving the citation, the date of judgment and the case number, the names of the Hon'ble Judges of the Apex Court have been mentioned therein. Identically the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Meerut while deciding the bail application of the applicant in first bail application being Bail Application No. 5278 of 2025 (Alice Lee @ Li Tengli Vs. Union of India) in its para 6 has although referred to the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the CGST Department but has therein mentioned the names of the Hon'ble Judges of the Apex Court Presiding over the Bench in the said matter. This system of mentioning the names of Hon'ble Judges while giving reference to the judgments is totally uncalled for.”

The Bench further ordered, “The deponent of the counter affidavit is a responsible Officer who has disclosed that he is posted as Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Gautam Budh Nagar who and even the Court concerned ceased with the bail application are directed to be cautious in future for the said count and ensure that names of the Hon'ble Judges are not mentioned while referring the judgments and 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”

Advocate Jitendra Kumar Srivastava represented the Applicant, while Additional Solicitor General Of India represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The applicant, a Chinese national, has been in jail since August 26, 2025. A complaint was filed by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion), CGST, against Vinay Kumar, Alice Lee, Hu Lei, Tang Kai and M/s Tentech LED Display Private Ltd. alleging therein that M/s Tentech LED Display Pvt. Ltd., engaged in the manufacturing of goods, had shifted the manufacturing activities from Principal Place of Business to the premises situated at a Plot in Greater Noida where the unit was found running secretly. This was allegedly done without informing the department. Manufacturing activities were being carried out at the undeclared place by the company, and it was found engaged in the manufacturing of "Visual Display Unit"/LED Display Unit by assembling imported inputs.

It was also gathered that the taxpayer was evading GST by mis-declaring its finished goods as Cabinet, whereas the cabinet was one of the inputs of the Visual Display Unit. It was alleged that the taxpayer was dispatching the goods by paying GST @ 18% and thereby causing a short payment of GST @ 10% on this count. The evasion of tax on account of misclassification or misdeclaration of goods of 10% was calculated for financial years 2019-20 to 2024-25 to be Rs. 88,80,751. The enquiry concluded, and the applicant was arrested, after which the said complaint was filed. The husband of the applicant preferred a writ petition before the Apex Court, and the petitioner was directed to apply for bail before the court concerned in accordance with law.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the applicant has been arrested as an accused in a matter relating to evasion of tax. The investigation was conducted by the CGST Department, subsequent to which the quantum of evasion was calculated, and then a complaint was filed against the applicant and three other persons, along with the company, as accused.

During the investigation, a letter of appointment was recovered by the Investigating Agency showing the appointment of the applicant in the said company from February 21, 2024, in its security department. The applicant was stated to be having a child aged about 3 years. The Bench noted that the matter was triable by the court of a Magistrate. The maximum punishment attracting in it is five years. The Bench further considered the fact that the co-accused Vinay Kumar had been granted bail by a coordinate Bench, and the applicant is a lady. It was further noted that the applicant is a Chinese national and her visa for stay in India had expired, for which she has applied for its extension.

“Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail”, it added.

The Bench thus ordered the release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with certain other conditions.

Cause Title: Alice Lee @ Li Tengli v. Union Of India (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:28109)

Appearance

Applicant: Advocate Jitendra Kumar Srivastava

Respondent: Additional Solicitor General Of India, Advocates Dhananjay Awasthi, Krishna Agarawal

Click here to read/download Order