Bail in CGST economic offence prosecution refused despite completed investigation, custody period, and request to pursue compounding.

Bail in a CGST prosecution was declined where the allegations involved issuance of GST invoices without supply of goods or services, the investigation had already been completed, and the Court treated the offence as a serious economic one. The Court reiterated that the CGST regime does not create an absolute bar on arrest or custodial action, and that long incarceration alone does not require release on bail. It also noted the availability of compounding under the statutory scheme, with liberty to seek relief before the competent authority on deposit of a stated percentage of the evaded amount. Bail was refused at that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail should be granted to an accused in a prosecution under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, having regard to the gravity of the alleged economic offence, the stage of investigation, the plea of medical hardship, and the request to pursue compounding.

Analysis: The application was considered in the context of the earlier rejection of bail, the allegation of issuance of GST invoices without supply of goods or services, the completion of investigation, and the submission that the petitioner had remained in custody for a substantial period. The governing considerations included the seriousness of economic offences, the absence of an absolute bar on arrest or custodial action under the CGST regime, and the fact that long incarceration by itself does not mandate release on bail. The prior view of the Court was reiterated, including the reliance on the statutory scheme governing arrest and the availability of compounding, with liberty to seek relief before the competent authority on deposit of a stated percentage of the evaded amount.

Conclusion: Bail was refused and the petitioner was not held entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage.

---