Case Details: Shivam Gupta vs. State of Punjab (2026) 41 Centax 71 (P&H.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Mrs Manisha Batra, J.
- S/Shri Vinod Ghai, Sr. Adv., Anil Mehta, Karan Bhardwaj, Arnav Ghai, R. S. Bagga & Jaydeep Garg, Advs. for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Sourabh Goyal, Senior Standing Counsel & Ms Himanshi Gautam, Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioners were investigated in relation to three Ludhiana entities engaged in the manufacture of ingots and scrap trade. The allegation was that fraudulent input tax credit (ITC) was claimed on the basis of invoices issued by cancelled, suspended or non-existent suppliers. Searches were conducted, statements were recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act, and the petitioners were arrested after filing of a complaint alleging offences under Section 132 of the CGST Act, read with Section 20 of the IGST Act. Applications for bail were declined by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and thereafter by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioners then filed the present petitions under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail. The matter was placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the alleged offences were punishable for up to five years and were compoundable in nature. The Court further held that the tax liability was yet to be adjudicated and had not attained finality. The Court also held that the evidence in the matter was documentary or electronic in nature and no further custodial interrogation of the petitioners was sought. Accordingly, the Court held that further incarceration was unwarranted and the petitioners were entitled to regular bail subject to conditions.
List of Cases Cited
- Amit Bansal v. State of — Haryana 2024 NCPHHC 19173 — Referred [Para 4]
- Ashutosh Garg v. Union of India — (2024) 20 Centax 595 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 4]
- Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. — (2018) 3 SCC 22 — Referred [Para 11]
- Deepak Sharma v. State of Punjab — (2024) 22 Centax 311 (P&H.) — Referred [Para 4]
- Dipanshu Anand v. Principal Commissioner, Central GST, Ludhiana — (2025) 36 Centax 184 (P&H.) = 2025 (103) G.S.T.L. 391 (P&H.) — Referred [Para 4]
- Manish Kumar v. DGGSIT, Zonal Unit, Ludhiana — (2025) 33 Centax 248 (P&H.) — Referred [Para 4]
- Mohit Singla v. DGGSIT — [CRM-M-400-2026, dated 6-2-2026] — Referred [Para 4]
- P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement — (2020) 13 SCC 791 — Referred [Para 13]
- Parteek Das Gupta v. State of — Haryana 2024 NCPHHC 46670 — Referred [Para 4]
- Pawan Kumar v. State of Punjab — [CRM-M-15013 of 2025, dated 28-5-2025] — Referred [Para 4]
- Radhika Aggarwal v. Union of India — (2025) 6 SCC 545 — Referred [Para 4]
- Ratnambar Kaushik v. Union of India — 2023 (68) G.S.T.L. 233 (SC) — Referred [Para 4]
- Sanjay Chandra v. CBI — (2012) 1 SCC 40 — Referred [Para 12]
- Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI — 2022 AIR SC 3386 — Referred [Para 13]
- Shamim Akhtar v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence — (2023) 6 Centax 172 (P&H.) = 2023 (73) G.S.T.L. 582 (P&H.) — Referred [Para 4]
- Sovit Bansal v. Directorate General of GST — [CRM-M-38861-2025, dated 29-9-2025] — Referred [Para 4]
- Sunil Mahlawat v. Central GST — (2022) 1 Centax 228 (P&H.) = 2023 (68) G.S.T.L. 31 (P&H.) — Referred [Para 4]
- Superintendent (Anti-Evasion), CGST Commissionerate v. Vaishno Das — [Complaint case bearing No. COMA/58595 of 2025, dated 14-11-2025] — Referred [Para 2]
- Tejpal Singh v. Director General of G.S.T. Intelligence — (2024) 16 Centax 17 (P&H.) = 2024 (83) G.S.T.L. 247 (P&H.) — Referred [Para 4]
- Vineet Jain v. Union of India — (2025) 30 Centax 57 (S.C.) = 2025 (99) G.S.T.L. 129 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 4]
- Vipin Garg Alias Bindu v. State of Haryana — (2023) 2 Centax 211 (S.C.) = 2023 (69) G.S.T.L. 3 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 4]
- Yash Goyal v. Union of India — [Criminal Appeal No. 2784 of 2024, dated 28-6-2024] — Referred [Para 4]
