Anticipatory bail in alleged GST input tax credit fraud refused due to non-cooperation and serious investigation concerns.

Allegations of fraudulent availing and passing on of input tax credit under the GST regime were treated as a serious economic offence because the record indicated invoice transactions without corresponding movement of goods and consequential revenue loss. The applicant's repeated non-compliance with summons, failure to furnish documents, and conduct suggesting evasion of arrest were relied on to show lack of cooperation with the investigation. Applying the settled approach that deep-rooted economic offences and investigation prejudice warrant strict scrutiny, the court refused anticipatory bail and rejected the application.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged fraudulent availing and passing on of input tax credit under the GST regime, and whether the applicant's conduct justified denial of pre-arrest bail.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed a prima facie case of supply and receipt of invoices without corresponding movement of goods, causing substantial revenue loss. The applicant's repeated non-compliance with summons, failure to furnish documents, leaving the investigating premises without signing the statement, and conduct suggesting evasion of arrest were treated as indicating lack of cooperation with the investigation. In view of the settled approach that economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies and large public loss are to be viewed seriously, the Court found that discretionary relief would adversely affect the investigation.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was refused and the application was rejected.

Final Conclusion: Pre-arrest bail was declined in view of the gravity of the economic offence and the applicant's non-cooperative conduct during investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases of serious economic offences involving alleged tax fraud and non-cooperation with investigation, anticipatory bail may be refused where custodial interrogation and effective investigation would be prejudiced.

---