Case Details: Amit Mehra vs. Union of India (2026) 38 Centax 280 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- J.B. Paediwala & Alok Aradhe, JJ.
- S/Shri P.B. Suresh, Sr. Adv., Saurabh Kapoor, Mayank Jain, Madhur Jain, Gurwinder Singh, Kartik Yadav, Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Ms. Muskan Chauhan, Tanya Kumar, Ms. Shivani Kapoor, Advs. & Nikilesh Ramachandran, AOR, for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Raja Thakre, ASG, Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, Rohit Khare, Bhuvan Mishra, Udit Dediya & Mayanlk Pandey, Advs., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner-assessee was arrested under Section 69 read with Section 132 of the CGST Act and the Haryana GST Act on allegations of having set up multiple non-existent or proxy firms and of having passed on the benefit of fake input tax credit through goods-less invoices, allegedly causing substantial loss to the public exchequer. It was alleged by the prosecution that as many as 44 such firms were created for the said purpose and that the magnitude of the alleged fraud was significant. The petitioner sought bail, contending that the defences raised were questions of fact which could only be adjudicated by the Trial Court after collection and appreciation of evidence from both sides. The High Court, while considering the bail application, held that the allegations related to a serious economic offence involving a huge amount and that such offences constituted a distinct class requiring a more stringent approach while considering bail, and consequently declined bail, leading to the filing of the Special Leave Petition. The matter was accordingly placed before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that although the gravity of the alleged offence could not be undermined, the petitioner had remained in judicial custody for more than eight months. The Court noted that the trial had not yet commenced, charges had not been framed, and that even if the trial were to begin, it was unlikely to conclude within a reasonable period. It was further observed that the offences were triable by a Magistrate and that the maximum punishment prescribed was imprisonment up to five years. In view of these circumstances, the Court exercised its discretion in favour of the petitioner and directed release on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the Trial Court may deem fit to impose, and the Special Leave Petition was accordingly disposed of.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Amit Mehra v. Union of India (2026) 38 Centax 229 (P&H) = [2026] 182 taxmann.com 319 (Punjab & Haryana) – — (2026) 38 Centax 229 (P&H) = — [2026] 182 taxmann.com 319 (Punjab & Haryana) – — Reversed [Para 8]
