Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010230342025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3350/2025 UJJAWAL KUMAR AGARWAL SON OF LATE BINOD KUMAR SINGHAL PROPRIETOR OF M/S BKS ENTERPRISES, A RESIDENT OF OPPOSITE HINDI SCHOOL, MAKUM, HOLDING NO. 288, THANA ROAD, CHINAPATTY, IN THE DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN-786125. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND TAXATION, ASSAM, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX KAR BHAWAN G.S. ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE TAX GST INTELLIGENCE AND ENFORCEMENT CELL KAR BHAWAN GUWAHATI-780006 Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. ASHOK SARAF, B SARMA,MR P K BORA,MR S J SAIKIA,MR. N N DUTTA,MR P BARUAH Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE AND TAXATION, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 23/10/2025 Heard Dr. A Saraf, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Finance and Taxation Department appearing for the respondents. 2. The present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been instituted praying for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, Shri Ujjawal Kumar Agarwal, in connection with Case No. CT/ENF/ARST/2025/04 registered under Section 132(5) of the Assam Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. 3. The petitioner, herein, was taken into custody on 08.10.2025 and presently, he is languishing in judicial custody. 4. Dr. A Saraf, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, by taking this Court through the materials available on record including the application, as submitted in the matter by the authorities for remand of the petitioner, herein, to judicial custody, the authorization to arrest the petitioner as made by the Principal Commissioner of State Tax, Assam, as well as the orders passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the application for bail of the petitioner, has submitted that the authorities have not satisfied the requirements of the provisions of Section 132 of the Assam Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 and accordingly, the very arrest of the petitioner would not be maintainable. 5. By referring to the application for remand to judicial custody, as submitted by the respondents, Dr. Saraf, learned Senior counsel, submits that a perusal of the same would reveal that the utilization of ineligible input tax credit by the petitioner is in relation to the Page No.# 3/5 transactions made with 12 firms and the taxable value of the transactions made, amounts to Rs.17,73,00,053/-. He submits that 18% of the same, being the taxable amount, the same would work out to around Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores) approximately. He submits that the value being less than Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores), the matter would be a non-cognizable offence and a bailable one and it would not have mandated the arrest of the petitioner. 6. Dr. Saraf, learned Senior counsel by referring to the authorization to arrest, as issued by the competent authority in the matter, submits that the same is devoid of material particulars, the competent authority in the authorization to arrest has only laid vague allegations of utilization of ineligible input tax credit by the petitioner, amounting to Rs.12,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Crores). He reiterates that the same has not brought on record the basis for arriving at the conclusion to the extent of utilization of ineligible input tax credit by the petitioner, herein. 7. Dr. Saraf, learned Senior counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court, while considering the application for bail of the petitioner, had failed to appreciate the facts as brought on record in the matter and only by considering the nature of the allegation leveled against the petitioner, proceeded to reject his bail application and remanded him to judicial custody. 8. Dr. Saraf, learned Senior counsel in the above premises has submitted that considering the fact that the allegation existing against the petitioner, is based on documentary evidences, custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not be called for and accordingly, prays that the petitioner be enlarged on regular bail. 9. Per-contra, Mr. B Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Finance and Taxation Department, submits that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the materials as brought on record during the interrogation of the petitioner and his other colleagues, have revealed that there is further mis-utilization of the benefits as provided under the Act of 2017 by the petitioner and the same is being presently enquired into by the Investigating Officer. He submits that in the event, the petitioner is enlarged on bail, at this stage of the investigation, the same would Page No.# 4/5 cause prejudice to the investigation. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail at this stage. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 11. Considering the materials coming on record, this Court at this stage restraints itself from considering the submissions made by Dr. Saraf on its merit. However, noticing that the petitioner was detained in the matter on 08.10.2025 and is presently in judicial custody and also noticing that the materials as requisite for the purpose have not been set out in manner required by the respondent authorities, this Court is of the considered view that further custodial interrogation of the petitioner, herein, may not be called for at this stage. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is entitled to be released on regular bail. 12. In view of the above position, the petitioner, Shri Ujjawal Kumar Agarwal, shall be released on regular bail, in connection with Case No. CT/ENF/ARST/2025/04 registered under Section 132(5) of the Assam Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only, along with 2 (two) local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, subject to the following conditions; (1) The petitioner, herein shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for, for the purpose of investigation of the case; (2) The petitioner, herein, shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person(s), acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing the same to the Investigating Officer; (3) The petitioner, herein, shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, without prior permission; 13. Any violation of the above condition would be good ground for the respondents to initiate the process for cancellation of the liberty of bail granted by this Court to the petitioner, herein. Page No.# 5/5 14. With the above observations and directions, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant