Bail in GST fake-invoice case granted where complaint was filed and further custody was not concretely justified.

In a bail application arising from alleged fake invoices and wrongful input tax credit under the CGST Act, the Court found continued custody unnecessary after the complaint had been filed and the investigation had remained pending for over a year. It noted that the prosecution had not clearly quantified the alleged input tax credit availed or the resulting loss, that the offence carried a maximum sentence of five years and was compoundable, and that the witness-tampering concern was unsupported by concrete material, particularly as the cited witnesses were departmental officers. Bail was granted to the accused-petitioner.

---

---

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

Analysis: The complaint was founded on statements recorded during investigation and on material said to have been recovered from the petitioner and connected premises. The Court noted that the complaint had already been filed, the investigation had been pending for more than a year, and the prosecution had not been able to establish how much input tax credit was actually availed by the alleged beneficiaries or quantify the alleged loss with precision. The maximum punishment for the alleged offence was five years, the offences were compoundable, and the petitioner had already undergone substantial custody. The Court further noted that the apprehension of influencing witnesses was not supported by concrete material, especially when the witnesses shown in the complaint were departmental officers. On these facts, continued detention was found unnecessary for the purpose of the case.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the accused-petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: In a bail proceeding arising from alleged GST fake-invoice offences, once the complaint is filed and the prosecution has not shown concrete necessity for further custody or established the alleged tax evasion with clarity, continued detention may be declined and bail may be granted.

---