Bail in alleged fake input tax credit fraud refused because suppliers were non-existent and goods movement was unproven.

Bail was refused in a prosecution for alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit under the CGST Act, where the Court considered the alleged use of fake bills, the stage of investigation, and surrounding circumstances indicating that several suppliers were non-existent, non-functional, or had cancelled registrations. The absence of material showing actual movement of goods, the gravity of the alleged offence, and the allegation that the applicant was the principal architect of the fraud were treated as sufficient grounds to decline bail at that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant-accused was entitled to bail in a prosecution alleging wrongful availment of input tax credit under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The application was considered in the context of the alleged fraudulent availment of input tax credit through fake bills, the stage of investigation, and the surrounding circumstances showing that several suppliers were found non-existent, non-functional, or with cancelled registrations. The Court noted the absence of material showing actual movement of goods, the gravity of the alleged offence, and the allegation that the applicant was the principal architect of the fraud. These factors were found sufficient to deny bail at that stage.

Conclusion: Bail was declined; the application was dismissed.

---