Anticipatory bail refused in GST evasion allegations where non-deposit of collected tax was treated as a serious economic offence.

Anticipatory bail was refused in a GST evasion matter alleging collection of CGST from customers without depositing it with the Government, attracting section 132 of the CGST Act. The Court treated the alleged conduct as a serious economic offence affecting public revenue and held that partial deposit of tax did not change the nature of the offence or make it bailable. It also noted that the applicant's role as a director was still under investigation, and that mere issuance of summons, without a present decision to arrest, was insufficient to justify anticipatory bail. The application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged GST evasion and collection of tax without deposit, where summons had been issued and the investigating agency had not yet decided to arrest the applicant.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed collection of CGST from customers and non-deposit of the same with the Government, attracting the offence under section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the offence alleged was a serious economic offence affecting public revenue. It further observed that partial deposit of tax did not alter the nature of the offence or convert it into a bailable matter. The applicant was a director and the investigation into his role was still pending. The Court also accepted that, at this stage, mere issuance of summons and the absence of a present decision to arrest did not create a sufficient basis for anticipatory bail.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was declined and the application was dismissed.

---