Anticipatory bail in GST evasion can be refused where investigation continues, summons are ignored, and non-cooperation is shown.

In a serious GST evasion investigation, the Court refused anticipatory bail because the inquiry was still continuing, summons had been issued to the company directors, and the material indicated non-cooperation. It followed the earlier Division Bench view that prosecution under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 is not dependent on completion of assessment, so pre-arrest protection is not automatic merely because adjudication remains pending. On that basis, the criminal petition was dismissed and the petitioners were denied protection against arrest.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with alleged GST evasion during an ongoing investigation.

Analysis: The petition arose from allegations that the company was providing taxable services without issuing invoices and without paying appropriate GST, resulting in substantial revenue loss. The investigation was still in progress, summons had been issued to the petitioners as directors, and the material placed before the Court indicated non-cooperation. The Court also relied upon the earlier Division Bench view that prosecutions under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 are not dependent upon completion of assessment and that relief against arrest is not automatic in cases involving serious GST violations.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to anticipatory bail. The request for protection against arrest was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The criminal petition was dismissed and the petitioners were denied pre-arrest protection in the GST investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: In a serious GST evasion case, where investigation is continuing and the material suggests non-cooperation, anticipatory bail may be refused; prosecution under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 is not barred merely because assessment is incomplete.

---