Case Details: Directorate General of GST Intelligence Versus Sudhir Gulati (2025) 32 Centax 277 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
Facts of the Case
The respondent, in a matter placed before the High Court, had been granted bail in connection with an investigation initiated by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence regarding alleged fraudulent availment of input tax credit on the basis of ineligible or non-genuine invoices. It was alleged that such invoices were issued by entities that neither undertook genuine purchases nor carried out legitimate business operations. The input tax credit so availed was purportedly utilised to discharge integrated tax liability on exports, which were treated as zero-rated supplies under the IGST Act. A petition was subsequently filed seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent on the ground that he was a key accused and that his continued liberty would obstruct the ongoing investigation. The petitioner further contended that there existed a risk of the respondent influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence. It was also submitted that although bail had been granted, the gravity of the offence warranted reconsideration. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that there was no material on record to suggest any abuse of the liberty granted by way of bail or any conduct by the respondent indicating risk of absconding, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. It observed that the nature of evidence in such matters is largely documentary and electronic, and that the respondent had already remained in judicial custody for twenty-eight days. The Court noted that no complaint had yet been filed by DGGI for offences under section 132 of the CGST Act and that no further custodial interrogation was either pending or sought. The Court found that the petitioner had failed to establish any supervening circumstances or cogent grounds as required under established legal principles for cancellation of bail. There was no allegation that the trial process had been hindered or that the discretion exercised while granting bail was legally flawed. In the absence of any demonstrable misuse of bail or any compelling reason justifying recall, the Court rejected the petition seeking revocation of the bail order.
List Of Case Cited
-
Amit Beriwal v. State of Odisha — 2020 SCC Online Ori 546 — Referred [Para 23]
-
CCE v. Kalvert Foods India Ltd. — (2011) 12 SCC 243 — Referred [Para 9]
-
Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana — (1995) 1 SCC 349 — Referred [Para 15]
-
Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. — (2022) 8 SCC 559 followed — Referred [Para 29]
-
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Polia — (2020) 2 SCC 118 (par 28) — Followed [Para 29]
-
Nityanand Rai v. State of Bihar — (2005) 4 SCC 178 — Referred [Para 19]
-
Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing v. State of Maharashtra — (2005) 5 SCC 294 — Referred [Para 19]
-
State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi — (1978) 2 SCC 411 — Referred [Para 18]
