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Your email address will not be published.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
HC Quashes GST Demand Order for Denial of Hearing | Fresh Notice Directed

GST • News • Case Chronicles

November 4, 2025

Recovery During GST Search Without SCN Held Illegal—Refund with Interest Ordered | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

November 4, 2025

Copy of CGST (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2025

GST • News • Statutory Scope

November 3, 2025

GSTN Launches ‘Import of Goods’ Module in IMS from Oct 2025

GST • News • Statutory Scope

November 1, 2025

GSTN Bars Filing of GST Returns Beyond 3 Years From Due Date

GST • News • Statutory Scope

October 31, 2025

CBIC Defines Officer Jurisdiction and Monetary Limits for SCNs and Orders Under CGST Act

GST • News • Statutory Scope

October 30, 2025

HC Quashes ITC Demand Order Passed Without Hearing After GST Cancellation

GST • News • Case Chronicles

October 29, 2025

HC Dismisses Writ for Delay in Challenging Order Before Filing Refund Claim

GST • News • Case Chronicles

October 28, 2025

HC Remands Case Over Inconsistent Refund Orders Passed on Similar Facts

GST • News • Case Chronicles

October 28, 2025

HC Upholds GST Goods Detention for Missing Documents at Interception

GST • News • Case Chronicles

October 27, 2025