Alice Lee @ Li Tengli vs. Union of India [TU-IDT-01-HC-2026]
Background of the Case
he bail application was filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with proceedings initiated under Sections 132(1)(d), 132(1)(e), 132(1)(f), 132(1)(i) and 132(1)(l) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The prosecution alleged that M/s Tentech LED Display Private Limited had misclassified certain LED display units and related goods and discharged GST at 18% instead of the applicable rate of 28%, resulting in short payment of tax amounting to approximately Rs. 88.80 lakhs for the financial years 2019-20 to 2024-25.
It was further alleged that certain manufacturing activities were carried out from an undeclared premises. The applicant, a Chinese national associated with the company, was arrested on 26.08.2025 and remained in judicial custody thereafter. A writ petition challenging the arrest was earlier dismissed by the Supreme Court of India, which granted liberty to apply for bail before the competent court.
Arguments by the Appellant (Revenue)
The applicant contended that she had been falsely implicated and was appointed in the company only in February 2024 on a fixed salary, whereas the alleged tax evasion pertained to earlier financial years beginning from 2019-20. It was argued that the offences alleged under Section 132 of the CGST Act are triable by a Magistrate and carry a maximum punishment of five years. The applicant further submitted that she is a woman having a minor child aged about three years and had been in custody since August 2025. Emphasis was placed on the fact that the case of the Department was primarily based on documentary evidence and that a co-accused had already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court. It was thus contended that continued incarceration was not justified.
Respondent’s Response (Assessee)
The Union of India opposed the bail application contending that serious allegations of GST evasion involving substantial revenue loss were made against the applicant. It was submitted that economic offences are grave in nature and stand on a different footing while considering bail. The Department relied upon the observations made by the Supreme Court while declining to interfere with the arrest and argued that prima facie involvement in tax evasion was evident. It was further contended that the applicant’s role in the affairs of the company required detailed examination during trial and that bail should not be granted in such economic offences.
Court Findings and Decision
The Allahabad High Court, after examining the material on record and the rival submissions, observed that the offences alleged under Section 132 of the CGST Act are triable by a Magistrate and prescribe a maximum punishment of five years. The Court noted that the applicant had been in custody since 26.08.2025, that she has a minor child, and that the prosecution case was largely founded on documentary evidence. It also took into consideration the grant of bail to the co-accused and held that, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the applicant was entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties along with conditions imposed by the trial court.
Significantly, the Court also expressed strong disapproval of the practice of mentioning the names of Hon’ble Judges in affidavits and orders while citing judicial precedents. The Court termed such practice as “totally uncalled for” and clarified that while referring to judgments, it is sufficient to mention the names of the parties, date of decision, case details or citation, and relevant extracts. The Court directed the concerned Presiding Officer as well as the deponent of the counter-affidavit to remain cautious in future. It further ordered that a copy of the decision be communicated to the District & Sessions Judge concerned and to the departmental authorities for information and compliance.
To download official order, Click Here
“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”