Supreme Court of India · GST · AKHB case note
Makhijani Pushpak Harish v. State of Gujarat
Criminal Appeal No. 1193 of 2023, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2868 of 2023
No neutral citation is printed in the official signed order; none independently verified. ·
Final reasoned disposal of a criminal appeal after grant of leave, confined to a bail condition.
Appellant, on removal of the bank-guarantee bail condition and release subject to surviving conditions.
01 · Facts of the case and issues
Makhijani Pushpak Harish was arrested following a complaint by the Superintendent (Prevention), Central GST and Central Excise, Vadodara. Paragraph 3 mentions CGST sections 69 and 132(1)(a) and records that he sought bail under section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara. The Magistrate granted bail subject to a ₹3 crore bank guarantee and other conditions. On 12 January 2023, the Gujarat High Court, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 710 of 2023, reduced the guarantee to ₹1.5 crore. The Supreme Court appeal challenged the remaining guarantee condition. The order does not state the alleged tax amount or decide guilt.
Source: Paragraphs 3–5, official PDF pages 1–2; ROP on page 5 confirms the impugned proceeding.
02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court
The question was whether the bank-guarantee precondition for bail could be maintained. The Court noted that comparable monetary deposit or guarantee conditions had been disapproved. It relied on Subhash Chouhan v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2023, decided on 20 January 2023, and Anatbhai Ashokbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 2023, decided on 17 February 2023. Finding the facts identical for this purpose, it saw no reason to depart from those decisions. Paragraph 8 recounts the ASG’s concession in Subhash; it does not record a new concession by counsel in Makhijani. The order states that both sides were heard but does not separately summarize their current arguments.
Source: Paragraphs 2 and 6–10, official PDF pages 1–3. The ASG statement belongs to the earlier Subhash proceeding: paragraph 8, pages 2–3.
03 · Judicial decision and operative relief
After granting leave, the Court set aside the bank-guarantee condition as unsustainable. It preserved the remaining conditions imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and upheld by the High Court, directed the appellant’s release on bail, allowed the criminal appeal and disposed of pending applications. The order does not list the surviving conditions or determine any tax demand or criminal charge.
Source: Grant of leave, official PDF page 1; paragraphs 11–14, pages 3–4; matching ROP, pages 5–6.
04 · In favour of
In favour of the appellant on the challenged ₹1.5 crore guarantee condition, with release directed subject to the surviving bail terms. This is a final disposition of the Supreme Court appeal concerning bail, while the underlying prosecution and tax merits were not adjudicated.
Source: Paragraphs 11–14, official PDF pages 3–4; ROP, pages 5–6.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: Cite this decision for its treatment of the challenged monetary bank-guarantee condition and its express reliance on Subhash and Anatbhai. Obtain the lower-court bail orders to identify the conditions that remain operative. Do not confuse a bail-condition deposit with the statutory pre-deposit for a GST appeal, or imply that every security or bail bond is prohibited. Section 69 concerns arrest powers and should not be described as a standalone offence merely because paragraph 3 groups it with section 132(1)(a). The Court did not determine the validity of the arrest, assess GST, decide guilt or order repayment of an already deposited sum.
Source: AKHB commentary based on paragraphs 3–14, official PDF pages 1–4; no additional judicial holding.
Source and verification
Official Supreme Court signed order and matching record of proceedings. · Individual hosted copy of the original judgment
All six PDF pages read and visually inspected: signed order on pages 1–4, followed by the matching ROP on pages 5–6. The substantive order is numbered through paragraph 14; the opening grant of leave is unnumbered. The printed appeal/SLP numbers, date, bench and relief agree. Decision date is 19 April 2023; the electronic signature timestamp is 20 April 2023. No separate cryptographic-signature certification is made.
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.
Statutory scope
Paragraph 3 uses a shortened name for the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and groups sections 69 and 132(1)(a) together. This note preserves the statutory references while distinguishing section 69’s arrest power from the offence provision. Section 437 CrPC is the historical bail provision expressly named. No current statutory-version certification, or ruling on the validity of those provisions, is implied.
Later treatment and present applicability
The official original was checked on 18 October 2026. Its express reliance on Subhash Chouhan and Anatbhai Ashokbhai Shah is verified from paragraphs 7–10. A comprehensive later review, clarification, cancellation-of-bail or prosecution-docket check has not been completed. The note describes the decision as delivered, and does not certify present compliance or current statutory applicability.
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.