Bail in GST fraud allegations granted where adjudication remained pending and no quantification order had been passed.

Bail was granted in a GST prosecution alleging wrongful input tax credit, cancellation of e-way bills and use of forged or fictitious documents because adjudication was still pending and no order quantifying the alleged excess credit had been passed. The Court noted that notices had been issued but the applicant's registration and the selling dealers' registrations had not been cancelled, and the defence relied on purchases from registered dealers and the absence of a quantification order. It also treated the likelihood of prolonged trial and continued custody as relevant, and held that the seriousness of the allegation alone was not decisive for bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in a case alleging wrongful availment of input tax credit, cancellation of e-way bills and use of forged or fictitious documents.

Analysis: The allegation was that the applicant had availed excess input tax credit and cancelled e-way bills on a large scale, while the defence relied on valid registration, purchases from registered dealers, absence of cancellation of registrations, pending adjudication, and the absence of a quantification order. The Court noted that notices under the GST regime had been issued, but no adjudication order quantifying the excess credit had yet been passed and neither the applicant's registration nor the selling dealers' registrations had been cancelled. The Court also considered that the trial would take time, that continued custody could become unduly prolonged, and that seriousness of the offence alone was not determinative of bail.

Conclusion: The applicant was held entitled to bail.

Final Conclusion: Liberty was preferred over continued pre-trial incarceration, subject to conditions, and the bail application was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a case involving alleged tax fraud and economic offence, bail may be granted where adjudication is still pending, no quantification order has been passed, and further custody is likely to result in prolonged incarceration, because seriousness of the allegation by itself is not decisive.

---