Anticipatory bail in alleged GST input tax credit fraud rejected where prima facie involvement and custodial interrogation were found necessary.

Anticipatory bail was refused in a GST prosecution alleging fraudulent input tax credit through bogus firms and fake invoices. The Court treated the offence as an economic one, relied on the co-accused statement and the prima facie link to the applicant, and held that the allegations disclosed participation in facilitating the fraudulent claims. It further found that the nature and magnitude of the alleged tax evasion, together with the need for effective investigation, justified custodial interrogation and weighed against pre-arrest bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant in a case involving alleged fraudulent input tax credit and large-scale tax evasion under the GST regime.

Analysis: The application was considered in the light of the allegations that the applicant was linked to the creation and use of bogus firms and fake invoices for passing fraudulent input tax credit. The statement of the co-accused indicated the applicant's involvement, and the Court found that the allegations disclosed a prima facie role in facilitating the fraudulent claims. Having regard to the nature of the offence, its economic character, the magnitude of the alleged tax evasion, and the need for proper investigation, the Court held that custodial interrogation could not be ruled out.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was not found to be justified and the application was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In economic offences involving alleged fraudulent tax credit and a prima facie link to the accused, anticipatory bail may be refused where custodial interrogation is considered necessary for effective investigation.

---