1 2025:CGHC:51954 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8411 of 2025 Ankit Singh S/o Shri Banbir Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. 27/125, In Front Of New Hanuman Mandir, New Shanti Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisarh 492007 --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax (B I U), Nawa Raipur Division, G S T Bhawan, Sector - 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Adv along with Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.10.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. Arr. 02/2025, registered at Police Station Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (BIU), Nawa Raipur Division, District – Raipur (C.G.) for MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.10.17 16:29:49 +0530 2 the offence punishable under Section 132 sub-section (1) clause (b) (c) of SGST Act, 2017. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant is the Director of M/s Mahavir Moulds India Private Limited and is allegedly involved in the management, operations, and financial transactions of the following seven companies, namely—M/s Jai Bajrang Loha Private Limited, M/s Shree Pashupati Nath Loha & Steel Traders Private Limited, M/s Ambitious Procon Private Limited, M/s Karma Hireup Private Limited, M/s Morvi Nandan Healthcare Private Limited, M/s Nairson Multiventures Private Limited, and M/s NPR Commercials Private Limited. It is alleged that these entities have claimed and availed ineligible or fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to approximately Rs.23.06 crores (Rs.23,05,66,216/-) from non-existent, registration-cancelled, or suspected business entities. The complaint, as filed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (BIU), New Raipur Division, discloses that the alleged acts of the applicant constitute offences punishable under Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the SGST Act, 2017”), which are further punishable under Section 132(1)(i) of the said Act. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that no requisites or conditions precedent to establish any offence under Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the SGST Act, 2017 have been made out, even prima facie, against him. The quantum and nature of 3 punishment under the GST Act is determined based on the quantum of tax involved, which has not yet been assessed by the authorities and remains appealable. In such circumstances, detention of the applicant is completely unwarranted and violative of his fundamental constitutional rights. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Vineet Jain v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 513, has held that offences under Section 132(1) of the CGST Act attract a maximum punishment of five years with fine, and in such cases, the accused should ordinarily be granted bail at the earliest stage. Similarly, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in Rahul s/o Kamalkumar Jain v. Director General, GST Intelligence, 2024:BHC-NAG: 1006 held that the Supreme Court’s guidelines apply to arrests by GST authorities. 4. It is further argued that all offences under the SGST Act, 2017 are compoundable under Section 138, and the object of the Act is primarily economic, aimed at recovery of revenue, not punitive incarceration. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Sanjay Kumar Bhuwalka v. Union of India, CRM 3327/2018 and the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M/s Sree Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Writ Petition No.24955/2021 have reiterated that statutory notice and assessment are mandatory preconditions before invoking penal provisions. No such notice or assessment has been conducted in the present matter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. CBI, Criminal Appeal No.1603/2019 has outlined relevant factors for grant of bail, including nature of 4 accusation, likelihood of tampering with evidence, character of the accused, and public interest. The Applicant has cooperated fully during investigation, has been interrogated, and no evidence remains to be collected from him and the complaint has been filed. Lastly, the applicant is languishing in jail since 20.08.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant/accused, being the director of M/s Mahavir Moulds India Pvt. Ltd., M/s Jai Bajrang Loha Pvt. Ltd., and M/s Shri Pashupatinath Loha Steel & Traders, is alleged to have orchestrated a network of non-existent businesses to wrongfully claim and avail input tax credits amounting to approximately Rs. 23.28 crore, thereby causing substantial loss to the Government exchequer. He is further alleged to have exercised control over multiple other firms and engaged in creation of fake invoices to evade taxes. Considering the enormity of the tax evasion, the economic offence committed, and the sophisticated method adopted, it is submitted that the applicant/accused is not entitled to the benefit of bail at this stage but could not dispute the fact that the investigation has been completed and complaint has been filed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the complaint has already been filed against the applicant and further no statutory notice or 5 assessment has been conducted against the applicant under the SGST Act, 2017, the quantum of tax involved remains unassessed and appealable, and the applicant has fully cooperated with the investigation and further the compliant has been filed, it appears that no purpose would be served by his further detention. The primary object of the Act is economic recovery rather than punitive incarceration. In view of the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vineet Jain (supra), as well as various High Court rulings, and considering the character, standing, and conduct of the applicant and the fact that applicant is languishing in jail since 20.08.2025, his custodial detention is not warranted hence, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application on behalf of the applicant – Ankit Singh is allowed. 8. If the applicant, Ankit Singh, furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, he be released on bail involved in Crime No. Arr. 02/2025, registered at Police Station Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (BIU), Nawa Raipur Division, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 132 sub-section (1) clause (b)(c) of SGST Act, 2017. Order shall be in force till disposal of the case. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Manpreet