The GST Act is a special legislation and a complete code; authorities cannot bypass its procedural safeguards, such as the mandatory sanction under Section 132(6), by invoking general penal provisions of the IPC for the same set of allegations.

ORDER :

Sandeep N. Bhatt, J.

This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail in relation to Crime No.102/2025 registered at Police Station - Economic Offences Wing, Bhopal (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B , 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and 66-D of the IT Act. The applicant is in custody since 01.07.2025.

2. According to the story of prosecution as enunciated in the FIR dated 21.06.2025, the genesis of the case is a complaint submitted by one Pratap Singh Lodhi, an agriculturist and resident of Village Dhaneta, Tehsil Patan, District Jabalpur. The complainant alleged that he was in need of a loan and approached co-accused N.K. Khare alias Vinod Kumar Sahay, who induced him by stating that only a small loan could be availed on agricultural land, but a larger loan could be secured if he formed a proprietorship firm and obtained GST registration in the name of the said firm. Acting on this inducement and false assurance, the complainant registered a firm in the name of Maa Narmada Traders for which documents such as Aadhaar, PAN, bank statements, land records and loan books were handed over to the co-accused. It is further alleged that without the complainant's consent, the co-accused got registered an email ID jdrealities99@gmail.com in the GST records and also registered the complainant’s son’s mobile number for GSTOTP verifications. That subsequently, GST Registration No.23ALLPL1056B1ZM was issued in the name of Maa Narmada Traders. However, the complainant never carried out any business through the said registration. Later, when GST authorities visited the complainant, he was informed that tax dues to the tune of Rs 72,66,408/- were outstanding against the said firm. This came as a shock to the complainant, as bogus transactions of crores of rupees had been shown in the name of Maa Narmada Traders without his knowledge or involvement. It is further stated that, co-accused N.K. Khare and Satyam Soni had fraudulently filed GST returns in respect of Maa Narmada Traders by misusing OTPs and documents of the complainant. Further probe disclosed that apart from Maa Narmada Traders, several other bogus firms were floated, namely Namami Traders, Maa Rewa Traders, and Abhijeet Traders, all allegedly used to generate fake GST returns and fraudulent transactions. It is further stated that, through these bogus firms, the accused persons, including the present applicant, carried out fictitious transactions in collusion with various entities, such as K.D. Sales Corporation, Dilip Traders, Ankita Steel & Maa Jagdamba Coal Carriers, Mahak Enterprises, Koraj Technic, Mahamaya Traders, Ambar Coal Depot, and Anam Traders. Forged documents were used to support these fraudulent GST returns, causing a wrongful loss of approximately Rs 33.80 Crores to the State exchequer.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that various High Courts have considered the matter pertaining to Section 132 of the GST Act and have held that if the amount involved is more than Rs.5 Crores then maximum punishment prescribed is five years and there is no embargo under the GST Act for consideration of application for grant of bail. It is contended that considering the chain of events and considering the fact that GST authority have also resorted for offences punishable under the IPC, such practice adopted by the GST authorities is not approved by various High Courts and even some of the complaints have been quashed.

4. It is put forth that in the case of Akram Pasha v. Senior Intelligence Officer , (Crl. Pet. No.15066/2025, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru), the facts of that case are almost identical to the facts of the present case and considering the nature of allegation that the applicant has taken wrong benefit of Input Tax Credit, the case of the applicant is required to be considered.

5. In support of his submissions, counsel for the applicant has placed relian