Bail in fake invoice input tax credit allegations declined due to ongoing investigation and risk of evidence tampering.

Bail was refused in a CGST Act case involving alleged wrongful availment and use of input tax credit through fake invoices and non-existent suppliers. The Court treated the matter as a planned economic offence, noted that investigation was still continuing, and relied on documentary material linking the applicant to the alleged offence. It found no breach of the arrest guidelines cited by the applicant and held that the precedent relied on was distinguishable because cooperation with the investigation was not shown and the broker through whom the invoices were allegedly received was not disclosed. On that basis, the Court found a risk of interference with investigation and tampering with evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged wrongful availment and utilisation of Input Tax Credit on the basis of fake invoices and non-existent suppliers under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The application arose from allegations of a planned economic offence involving fake invoices and ineligible Input Tax Credit. The material before the Court indicated that investigation was still continuing, the suppliers were found to be fake or non-existent, and documentary material linked the applicant to the alleged offence. The Court also found no violation of the arrest guidelines relied upon by the applicant and held that the cited precedent was distinguishable on facts, as the present applicant had not shown cooperation with the investigation and had not disclosed the broker through whom the invoices were allegedly received. In these circumstances, the Court found that release on bail carried the risk of interference with the investigation and possible tampering with evidence.

Conclusion: Bail was declined.

---