Order on Board

1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. AD2212250057378B, dated 20.12.2025, File No. DGGI/INV/GST/2955/2025-GR.VI, by DGGI Zonal Unit Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections31(1), 35, 132 (1)(b) of CGST Act, 2017.RDAEHWUALNGAN

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant/accused DsRD iA i E ggnHW iteU a A dl LN lby G y AN has committed an offence of fraudulently availing Input Tax Credit by issuing fake invoices amounting to ₹8,57,15,507/-. During the course of investigation, it has been revealed that fake e-way bills were generated and invoices were issued in the names of M/s Mahalaxmi Enterprises, M/s Prem Enterprises, M/s Shri Exim, M/s Omkar Enterprises and M/s Kadri Enterprises by creating GST login IDs through various SIM cards, despite there being no actual supply or transfer of goods. It is further submitted that proceedings have also been initiated against the applicant by the State Goods and Services Tax Department, pursuant to which he was arrested on 10.06.2025. Hence, the present bail application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, having no connection whatsoever with the alleged offence. It is contended that the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 are conspicuously absent and no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. It is further submitted that the quantum and nature of punishment under the GST regime is dependent upon the determination of tax liability, which can only be ascertained after due assessment, and in the present case, no such assessment has been conducted till date, rendering the detention of the applicant unwarranted and violative of his constitutional rights. The applicant, being merely a partner of M/s Prem Enterprises, which itself was established in December 2025, had no occasion to file any GST returns prior to his arrest and thus no loss has been caused to the State exchequer. It is also contended that the applicant has no nexus with the other firms alleged in the complaint and, considering the stringent procedure for GST registration, the acts of such entities cannot be attributed to him. It is further argued that the maximum punishment under the CGST Act is up to five years and the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil have not been followed while effecting the arrest. Reliance is also placed upon the decision in Vineet Jain vs. Union of India to contend that such offences are ordinarily bailable in nature and, in absence of any material showing retention of wrongful gain or recovery of unexplained cash, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that the offences under the CGST Act are compoundable in nature and primarily aimed at recovery of revenue rather than punitive detention.

4. It is further submitted that the contentions raised by the non-applicant in its reply are baseless and devoid of merit. The alleged recovery of data from the laptop of one Vikram Mandani, who is stated to be an accountant, cannot be attributed to the applicant, as there is no evidence to establish any direct involvement or knowledge on his part. The mere fact that the said person maintained accounts of multiple firms does not give rise to any criminal liability against the applicant, nor can any vicarious liability be fastened in absence of cogent material. Similarly, the alleged recovery of login credentials of multiple firms, SIM cards, diary entries or WhatsApp chats from the said person do not, in any manner, establish the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. The statements recor