GST fake invoice fraud and wrongful ITC allegations led to denial of anticipatory bail amid ongoing investigation.

Anticipatory bail in a GST fake invoice and wrongful input tax credit case was refused where statements under section 70, GST portal data, bank records and WhatsApp communications prima facie indicated that the firm was used to issue bogus invoices and pass on ITC without actual supply of goods. The matter was treated as a serious economic offence involving large-scale GST fraud, warranting a strict approach at the bail stage. The note also records that section 132(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had been made non-compoundable and that the documentary nature of the material did not, by itself, rule out custodial interrogation while investigation remained ongoing.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicants in a GST fake invoice and wrongful ITC case involving alleged control over firm operations, circulation of bogus invoices, and large revenue loss.

Analysis: The allegations were supported by statements under Section 70, GST portal data, bank records, and WhatsApp communications, which prima facie showed that the firm was used for issuing fake invoices and passing on ITC without actual supply of goods. The Court treated the matter as an economic offence involving a large-scale GST fraud and observed that such offences require a strict approach at the bail stage. It also noted that Section 132(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had been made non-compoundable, and that the documentary nature of the evidence did not by itself negate the need for custodial interrogation while the investigation was still ongoing.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was declined because the applicants were found not entitled to pre-arrest protection at this stage.

---