Serious GST fraud allegations and non-cooperation justified custodial interrogation, leading to refusal of anticipatory bail.

Anticipatory bail was refused in a GST investigation involving alleged creation and use of fictitious entities, fake invoices, and fraudulent input tax credit. The court treated the allegations as a serious economic offence and noted that summons had been issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. It also relied on non-cooperation during inquiry, including failure to disclose the e-mail ID and password and failure to hand over the mobile phone linked to the relevant bank account. On that material, custodial interrogation was considered necessary for effective investigation, and bail was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged fraudulent input tax credit, fake invoices, and the need for custodial interrogation.

Analysis: The material on record indicated that summons had been issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and that the inquiry concerned alleged creation and use of fictitious entities, issuance of fake invoices, and passing on of fraudulent input tax credit. The record also showed non-cooperation in the investigation, including failure to disclose the e-mail id and password and failure to hand over the mobile phone linked with the concerned bank account. In view of the gravity of the alleged economic offence and the need for effective investigation, custodial interrogation was found necessary.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: In serious economic offences under the GST regime, where the accused is prima facie linked to fraudulent invoicing and does not cooperate with investigation, custodial interrogation can justify of anticipatory bail.

---