Suppression of material facts defeats anticipatory bail and transfer of investigation claims in alleged fake input tax credit fraud.

In allegations of fraudulent availing and passing of input tax credit under the CGST regime, anticipatory bail was refused because the petitioners were found to have concealed their own alleged role in a bogus billing network and had projected a false or misleading version of facts. The claimed whistleblower status was not accepted, and discretionary protection from arrest was declined. For the same reason, the request to transfer the investigation to another agency was rejected, as it rested on suppression of material facts rather than any legally sustainable ground.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail in proceedings arising out of alleged fraudulent availing and passing of input tax credit under the CGST regime. (ii) Whether the investigation ought to be transferred to another agency such as the CBI or CVC on the plea that the petitioners were whistleblowers.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail in proceedings arising out of alleged fraudulent availing and passing of input tax credit under the CGST regime.

Analysis: The material placed before the Court showed that the petitioners had concealed their status and were themselves connected with the alleged bogus billing network. The status reports recorded their statements and the departmental case that they had created firms, issued and received bogus invoices, and fraudulently availed input tax credit. In such circumstances, the plea that they were whistleblowers was not accepted, and the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail could not be granted on the basis of a false or misleading projection of facts.

Conclusion: The petition for anticipatory bail was rejected and no protection from arrest was granted.

Issue (ii): Whether the investigation ought to be transferred to another agency such as the CBI or CVC on the plea that the petitioners were whistleblowers.

Analysis: The Court found that the petitioners had approached the Court and the authorities while concealing their own alleged participation in the same transaction chain. Their representations and pleas for transfer were held to be based on suppression of material facts. Since the request was founded on a false whistleblower claim and not on any legally sustainable ground, no case was made out for transfer of investigation to another agency.

Conclusion: The request for transfer of investigation was rejected.

Final Conclusion: Relief was declined in both proceedings because the petitioners were found to have concealed material facts and could not use a whistleblower plea to obtain discretionary protection or transfer of investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: A litigant who suppresses material facts and is prima facie shown to be involved in the alleged offence cannot invoke whistleblower status to secure discretionary relief such as anticipatory bail or transfer of investigation.

---