2025 (11) TMI 70 - HC - GST

Regular bail granted to accused for claiming ITC from invoices of suppliers with suo-moto cancelled GST; Sections 132, 138 CGST

The HC granted regular bail to the petitioner accused of claiming ITC from invoices issued by suppliers whose GST registrations were suo-moto cancelled, ... Grant of regular bail to the petitioner - availing and passing of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the strength of invoices issued by the suppliers, whose GST registrations had been cancelled suo-moto by the department - Offence u/s 132(1)(b)(c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of Section 132 of CGST Act leaves no room to doubt that the offences alleged carry minimum punishment of 06 months and a maximum punishment of 05 years of imprisonment. Further, Section 138 of the CGST Act is relevant, as per which, the offences under Section 132 of the Act are compoundable. It will also be proper to refer to Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, [2011 (11) TMI 537 - SUPREME COURT], wherein Sessions Court and the High Court had refused the requests of the persons accused of committing offences of cheating and forgery and use of forged documents, for grant of bail on the grounds that offences alleged against them were serious involving deep rooted planning, causing huge loss to the State exchequer and that there was possibility of the accused persons tampering with the evidence. Now adverting to the present case, as per the allegations, the petitioner is involved in the racket of fake invoicing, thereby causing loss to the govt. exchequer through fraudulent GST input tax credit claims. However, the claims are yet to be determined by the competent authority of the respondent by making proper assessment/adjudication. As such, it is only after assessment/adjudication that the liability of the petitioner with regard to exact amount of evasion of tax is to be determined under the relevant provisions of CGST Act. A complaint has already been filed against the petitioner. He is in custody since 03.07.2025. Nothing has been shown to this Court which may justify the further detention of the petitioner in prison. Considering that the alleged offences are punishable with maximum punishment up to 05 years and also keeping in view that in such circumstances, the further detention of the petitioner may not at all be justified since in case of this nature, the evidence to be rendered by the respondent would essentially be documentary and electronic, which will be through official witnesses, due to which, there cannot be any apprehension of tampering, intimidating or influencing the witnesses and further as it appears justified to strike a fine balance between the need for further detention of the petitioner when no custodial interrogation has been claimed at all by the department, this Court considers that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail but subject to certain conditions. The petition moved by the petitioner is hereby allowed and he is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing personal bonds with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned/Duty Magistrate and subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - application allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the petitioner accused of offences under Section 132(1)(b)-(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (availing and passing of input tax credit based on false invoices) is entitled to grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, having regard to the nature and gravity of the alleged economic offences, the stage of investigation/trial, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence or absconding. 2. What are the relevant legal principles and parameters governing grant of bail in economic offences involving alleged large-scale GST frauds, including the relevance of documentary/electronic nature of evidence, punishment range under Section 132, compoundability under Section 138, and comparative precedents. 3. Whether, on the facts presented (allegations of paper entities, overlapping business addresses/mobile numbers, large ineligible ITC claims, partial reversals and deposits, custody period and completed investigation/complaint filed), further detention of the petitioner is justified or whether release on bail subject to conditions is appropriate. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Entitlement to Bail for Alleged Offences under Section 132(1)(b)-(c) CGST Act Legal framework: Offences under Section 132(1)(b)-(c) penalize issuance and use of invoices without supply of goods or services leading to wrongful availment/utilisation of input tax credit; punishments vary with amount involved (up to five years where evasion/ITC wrongly availed exceeds Rs.500 lakh). Section 138 renders offences under Section 132 compoundable. Bail is governed by the general principles of criminal jurisprudence (presumption of innocence; bail as rule and custody as exception), and the statutory/regulatory matrix under BNSS (Section 483) applies to bail applications. Precedent treatment: The Court relied upon Supreme Court jurisprudence and co-ordinate High Court authorities (including rulings holding that grant of bail is the norm unless exceptional circumstances exist; factors listed in Sanjay Chandra and Dataram Singh and subsequent authorities). Several authorities illustrate that even in large economic offences, completed investigation/filing of charge-sheet and documentary nature of evidence have supported grant of bail subject to stringent conditions; some authorities also warranted custodial detention where extraordinary circumstances existed. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined whether there were prima facie grounds to deny bail by reference to the settled parameters: nature and gravity of charge, severity of punishment, risk of flight, likelihood of tampering with evidence, character and antecedents, and stage of proceedings. Though allegations indicate involvement in a racket of fake invoicing and substantial alleged ineligible ITC, the investigation had progressed to filing of a complaint, the evidence is essentially documentary/electronic (official witnesses), and no claim for further custodial interrogation was made by the department. The Court noted partial reversals of ITC and deposit by the accused, continuous business connections, and that the precise liability remains to be determined through assessment/adjudication. The Court applied the principle that routine or further pre-trial detention is not warranted where investigation is complete and primary evidence is documentary, absent special circumstances indicating risk of tampering or flight. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where investigation is complete, evidence is documentary/electronic and there is no claim for further custodial interrogation, continued detention is not justified and bail may be granted even in serious economic offences punishable up to five years, subject to conditions. Obiter - Observations on comparative precedents and the general jurisprudence of bail are explanatory of the Court's approach but are not novel legal propositions beyond established law. Conclusion: The petitioner is entitled to bail. Continued detention was not justified on the facts presented; release on bail ordered subject to specified conditions (personal bond with two sureties, passport deposit, non-tampering, non-disposal of property, cooperation in trial, furnishing Aadhar and contact details, and prohibition on further criminal activity). Issue 2 - Application of Bail Jurisprudence and Relevant Considerations in Economic Offences Legal framework: The Court articulated the established multi-factorial test for bail in economic offences: (i) prima facie/ reasonable ground to believe commission of offence; (ii) nature and gravity of charge; (iii) severity of punishment; (iv) risk of absconding; (v) character and standing; (vi) likelihood of repetition; (vii) risk of tampering with witnesses; (viii) danger of thwarting justice. It emphasized that economic offences are not to be treated as a monolithic class mandating denial of bail. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on leading authorities reiterating bail as the rule, and enumerated cases where the Supreme Court granted bail in large-scale GST matters where investigation was complete and evidence documentary, as well as instances where custody was justified by exceptional facts. The Court treated these precedents as guiding the balancing exercise. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court applied the test to the present facts: investigation/complaint filed, documentary/electronic evidence predominating, lack of departmental request for custodial interrogation, and custodial period already undergone. The Court weighed the gravity of the alleged evasion against the procedural posture and the likelihood of interference with official documentary/electronic material (which was assessed as low given official witnesses and documentary trail). The Court further noted compoundability under Section 138 as relevant to the remedial context. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The conventional bail factors must be balanced with the stage of proceedings and the nature of evidence; completed investigation and documentary/electronic evidence reduce the justification for continued custody in economic offence trials. Obiter - Comparative narrative of cited precedents is explanatory support rather than a new rule. Conclusion: The established bail parameters support release on bail in the present circumstances, subject to conditions designed to allay risks of tampering, absconding or obstruction of justice. Issue 3 - Assessment of Factual Matrix: Paper Entities, Shared Premises/Mobile Numbers, Quantification of ITC and Effect on Bail Decision Legal framework: Allegations of paper entities, common addresses and shared mobile numbers, untraceable suppliers, abrupt termination of supply chains and nil-trading are relevant to establishing prima facie involvement in fraudulent ITC schemes; however, criminal liability and precise quantification are matters for assessment/adjudication and trial. Precedent treatment: Courts have treated such factual indicia as weighty in determining prima facie culpability; yet custody decisions require assessment of whether further detention is necessary for investigation or to prevent tampering/flight. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court recognized the seriousness of factual allegations - overlapping addresses, shared OTP numbers, non-existent suppliers, abrupt supply chains, and large contested ITC figures - but distinguished the need for detention because: (a) the department had completed investigation and filed complaint; (b) evidence is documentary/electronic to be produced by official witnesses; (c) no request for further custodial interrogation was made; and (d) partial reversals and deposits indicated steps mitigating risk. The Court emphasized that precise liability will be determined through statutory assessment/adjudication and trial, and that custody cannot be prolonged merely because allegations are grave if procedural safeguards and conditions can address risks. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Grave factual allegations do not automatically justify continued pre-trial detention when investigation is complete and the principal evidence is documentary/electronic; custodial necessity must be specifically demonstrated. Obiter - Observations on the weight of particular factual indicators are context-specific commentary. Conclusion: Despite serious factual allegations, the absence of a demonstrable need for further custodial interrogation and the documentary nature of evidence justified bail on stringent conditions; bail was granted with safeguards to prevent tampering, flight and disposition of assets. Conditions and Consequences of Breach Legal framework and reasoning: The Court imposed conditions customary in economic offence bail orders to mitigate identified risks: passport deposit, restrictions on disposal of assets under investigation, requirement to cooperate in trial, prohibition on tampering with evidence/witnesses, furnishing of identity/contact particulars, and sureties. The Court made breach of conditions a ground for cancellation of bail. Ratio: Imposition of such conditions is an appropriate balancing measure to secure attendance and prevent interference with the process while upholding the presumption of innocence.