Supreme Court of India · GST · AKHB case note
Yashik Jindal v. Union of India
SLP (Criminal) Nos. 2982–2983/2023, with SLP (Criminal) Nos. 2984–2985/2023
No neutral or reported citation is printed in the official source PDF. ·
Final reasoned disposal allowing the special leave petitions and removing the monetary bail condition; underlying prosecution remains unaffected.
Petitioners, on removal of the ₹2 crore deposit condition.
01 · Facts of the case and issues
The petitions arose from the Rajasthan High Court’s orders dated 16 December 2022 and 21 December 2022 and challenged a ₹2 crore deposit condition for bail. The petitioners were accused of tax evasion involving input-tax-credit benefit stated as ₹11.3 crore. Those are allegations recorded in the order, rather than final findings of liability or guilt. The Supreme Court considered SLP (Criminal) Nos. 2982–2983/2023 together with Nos. 2984–2985/2023.
Source: Official PDF p. 1, case caption and connected proceedings; p. 2, factual recital.
02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court
The Court heard counsel and requested the Additional Solicitor General to assist because there was no appearance for the respondent. It recalled its disapproval of onerous bail conditions in Subhash Chouhan v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 186/2023, decided on 20 January 2023. The order does not set out separate detailed party arguments, and none are attributed here.
Source: Official PDF p. 2, unnumbered operative order.
03 · Judicial decision and operative relief
Following Subhash Chouhan, the Supreme Court set aside the condition requiring deposit of ₹2 crore. It recorded being informed that borrowed money had already been deposited and left it open to the petitioners to seek withdrawal or refund. All other bail conditions remained applicable. The special leave petitions were allowed in those terms, with pending applications disposed of.
Source: Official PDF p. 2, unnumbered operative order.
04 · In favour of
This is a final reasoned disposal granting relief against the monetary bail condition. The order does not acquit the petitioners, quash the prosecution, determine GST liability, or itself direct an automatic refund. It preserves liberty to seek withdrawal or refund through the appropriate process.
Source: Official PDF p. 2, unnumbered operative order.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: Distinguish a judicially imposed monetary bail condition from a statutory appellate pre-deposit. This order concerns liberty in criminal proceedings and does not dispense with tax-appeal requirements. When relying on it, identify the condition challenged and the other bail conditions that remain binding. Where funds were deposited, make the necessary withdrawal or refund request rather than treating the order as an automatic payment direction. Verify subsequent case-specific orders before advising on current bail terms.
Source: AKHB analysis based on official PDF pp. 1–2; no additional judicial holding.
Source and verification
Official Supreme Court two-page record of proceedings containing the reasoned final order. · Individual hosted copy of the original judgment
Complete two-page official record of proceedings read and visually verified by independent source reviewer. Date, bench, docket numbers and operative relief verified. All five note panels independently source-checked.
Source checked 2026-10-18. Paragraph references follow the identified official judgment; PDF-page references follow that source file. The court’s printed paragraph numbers may differ from commercial reporting.
The final reasoned order appears within a record of proceedings. It expressly allows the SLPs; it does not expressly grant leave or supply a criminal appeal number.
The connected SLP numbers are included in one combined final decision and should not be counted as separate judgment PDFs.
Statutory scope
Do not infer a particular section from secondary case summaries. The official order addresses the bail deposit condition, not the ingredients of a tax offence or the liability assessment.
Later treatment and present applicability
This note records the Supreme Court order as delivered. The subsequent prosecution, implementation of bail directions and any later modification or cancellation have not been comprehensively checked. Source verification does not establish that no later proceedings exist.
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
AI-assisted research checked against the identified primary source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on the facts, tax period, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless the note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.