HC grants anticipatory bail in fake GST invoice & ineligible ITC case

GST • News • Case Chronicles

anticipatory bail fake GST invoices ineligible ITC GST fraud HC ruling CGST Act Jharkhand GST Act
Case Details: Raaj Jaiswal Versus Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (2025) 33 Centax 15 (Jhar.) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Ananda Sen, J.
  • Shri Nitin Kr. Pasari, Adv. for the Petitioner.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, in a matter placed before the High Court, was alleged to have been involved in the creation of fictitious firms in the names of his employees for the purpose of issuing fake GST invoices and fraudulently passing ineligible input tax credit, thereby obtaining financial benefits and causing loss to the State. It was further alleged that these transactions were structured to evade tax liabilities under the CGST and Jharkhand GST Acts. During the entire period of investigation, the petitioner was neither taken into custody nor was any warrant of arrest sought by the investigating agency. The petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail under section 484, read with section 482, of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It was submitted that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation and that one of the co-accused had already been granted regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court. 

High Court Held

The High Court held that there was no requirement for custodial investigation, particularly in light of the fact that the petitioner had not been arrested throughout the investigation and no request for arrest had been made by the investigating agency. The Court found that there was no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. It also took note of the fact that a similarly placed co-accused had been granted regular bail, and that the petitioner’s case stood on similar footing. The Court observed that the conditions prescribed for grant of anticipatory bail were satisfied and that denial of bail in such circumstances would not serve the interest of justice. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail was allowed, subject to the petitioner furnishing a bail bond with two sureties. 

 

List Of Case Cited

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
GSTN Upgrades GSTR-3B Interest and Tax Reporting from Jan 2026

GST • News • Statutory Scope

February 1, 2026

Common Director Not Ground to Lift Corporate Veil | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 31, 2026

GST Appeal Allowed Despite Delay Due to Illness | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 30, 2026

HC Orders Reconsideration of Excess ITC Denial on Imports

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 30, 2026

Bail Granted After Prolonged Custody Before Trial | SC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 29, 2026

Refund Cannot Be Rejected After Eligibility Accepted | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 28, 2026

GSTN Advisory On RSP Based Valuation Of Tobacco Under GST

GST • News • Statutory Scope

January 27, 2026

Writ Not Maintainable Against SCN Under GST | SC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 24, 2026

Writ Not Maintainable Against SCN Under Section 74 | SC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 23, 2026

Refund Of Statutory Pre-Deposit Becomes Vested Right | SC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 22, 2026