Case Details: Raj Kumar Mishra Versus Union of India (2025) 30 Centax 440 (Gau.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Mrs Mitali Thakuria, J.
- S/Shri P Talukdar, W.R. Medhi & A.V. Singh for the Petitioner.
- Shri S.C. Keyal for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a businessman and proprietor of a firm, was alleged to have availed ineligible input tax credit (ITC) based on invoices from non-existent entities amounting to less than Rs. 5 crores. The Office of GST issued a notice under Section 70 of the CGST Act, seeking documents relevant to the investigation. The petitioner initially appeared through counsel and subsequently filed an anticipatory bail application. The issue was whether anticipatory bail was maintainable given the nature of the offence and the investigation stage. The petitioner submitted that the offence involved was bailable and no arrest was imminent. The matter was brought before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court held that anticipatory bail was not maintainable in this case because offences involving ITC fraud below Rs. 5 crores are bailable under the CGST Act, and there was no apprehension or likelihood of arrest. The Court observed that the GST authorities had merely issued a notice under Section 70 to obtain documents, which does not justify anticipatory bail. Since no circumstances indicated a threat of arrest, anticipatory bail was considered unnecessary. The ruling clarifies that anticipatory bail is a discretionary remedy and is not applicable where the offence is bailable and no arrest is feared.
List of Cases Cited
- P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement — [2019] 109 taxmann.com 57 (SC) — Referred [Para 5]
- Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India — 2025 (95) G.S.T.L. 225/(392) E.L.T. 273/(2025) 27 Centax 425 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 8]
- Tarun Jain v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) — [2021] 132 taxmann.com 299/[2022] 89 GST 380 (Delhi) — Referred [Para 8]
