Case Details: Jatinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab (2025) 36 Centax 93 (P&H)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Manisha Batra, J.
- Ms Urvashi Dhugga & Ms Khushi Satviki, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- Shri Ajay Kalra, Sr. Standing Counsel, Chanchal K. Singla, Addl. A.G. & Ms Isha Januja, Adv., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee sought pre-arrest bail in connection with an investigation initiated by the Department under the CGST Act, read with the Haryana GST Act, concerning alleged fraudulent availment and passing of input tax credit (ITC) through non-existent or fictitious firms. The investigation, linked to Sona Casting, revealed that a major supplier had purportedly passed on fake ITC by issuing invoices without actual supply of goods. The registered premises were found non-existent, and discrepancies were noted in bank details, e-way bills, and vehicle movements. Circular fund flows without genuine business profits were detected. The assessee was alleged to have been non-cooperative despite issuance of summons and notices, and an earlier plea for pre-arrest bail had been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that there were specific and serious allegations of floating fictitious firms, generating false e-way bills, furnishing incorrect bank details, and passing fake ITC through circular fund flows causing substantial loss to the exchequer. Considering the magnitude of the alleged fraud, the assessee’s non-cooperation, and the ongoing nature of the investigation, the Court observed that custodial interrogation was necessary to prevent possible tampering with evidence and influence over witnesses. Accordingly, the pre-arrest bail petition was dismissed.
