1 CGHC010319592026 2026:CGHC:42474 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1539 of 2026 1. Mr. Aishwarya Yadav S/o J. B. Yadav Aged About 34 Years Partner, M/s S.S. Industries, R/o Plot No. 610, 611, 620, 621, Industrial Area, Urla Village Acholi, Raipur (CG) 492003 ... Applicant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Concerned Police Station (Urla, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001)/ Competent Authority 2. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance Department Of Revenue, North Block New Delhi. 3. Principal Commissioner, C G S T And Central Excise, Raipur G S T Bhawan, Tikrapara, Dhamtari Road Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 4. Additional Commissioner, C G S T And Central Excise, Raipur G S T Bhawan, Tikrapara, Dhamtari Road Raipur Chhattisgarh -492001 5. Superintendent (Prev.) C.G.S.T And Central Excise, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001 ... Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Advocate For Non-applicant No.1 : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer For Non-applicant No.2 : None For Non-applicant No.3 to 5 : Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate with Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 29/09/2026 1. This is first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) on behalf of applicant as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.64/GST/2023-2024 registered at Police Station Urla, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for commission of offence under Sections 132 (1) (c) and 132 (1) (I) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (henceforth ‘the Act of 2017’). 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant is one of the partners of M/s SS Industries which is partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing of MS Angle, MS Channel, MS Beam and trading of TMT bars and various other steel items bearing HSN 72. Applicant along with other co- accused persons namely Narendra Kumar Agrawal, Proprietor of M/s Amit Steels Raipur and Naveen Agrawal, Proprietor of M/s Ritika Enterprises, was engaged in fake purchase and sale of goods without underlying inward/outward supply of goods in violation of the provisions of the Act of 2017 with intent to evade payment of GST. On being demanded, the applicant failed to produce supporting documents in respect of inward/outward supplies shown in the course of business transaction. As such, the applicant has fraudulently availed 3 Input Tax Credit of Rs.27,93,34,219/- and passed on the fraudulent input tax credit of Rs.45,13,52,135/- without suppl of goods, evaded tax and thereby violated the provisions of the Act of 2017. 3. Learned counsel for applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and not committed any offence as alleged. He submits that by the order dated 27.2.2026, the Additional Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Raipur has ordered for recovery of Input Tax Credit and interest on from the applicant herein. Dissatisfied with the order dated 27.2.2026, writ petition (tax) is filed before the High Court, which is pending consideration. Thereafter, vide notice dated 14.7.2026 applicant has been intimated about filing of criminal complaint and pursuant thereto, applicant appeared before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur on 20.7.2026. On 21.7.2026 Applicant was again noticed to appear before the Court of CJM on 27.7.2026. Repeated summoning of applicant in the complaint case wherein there is allegation of committing non-bailable offence against the applicant, he has reasonable apprehension in the mind that on his appearance, he might be arrested and be deprived of his personal liberty. He submits that when once the legality and validity of the order of recovery etc. is questioned before the High Court, custodial detention of applicant based upon such an order would cause grave prejudice to the applicant. He submits that there is no question 4 of applicant’s absconding or tampering with the evidence because the entire prosecution is based upon documentary and record-based material already in custody of the department. Applicant is ready and willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed while granting him anticipatory bail. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prays that applicant may be extended benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 to 5 would submit that simply notice has been issued to the applicant for his appearance before the Court and in absence of any material showing that notice issued is a pre-cognizable notice, the fear of applicant that he will be arrested based is absolutely baseless and vague apprehension and deserves to be rejected. Mere filing of complaint case does not amount to apprehension of arrest and, therefore, anticipatory bail is not maintainable. 5. It is further submitted that present is the case of enormous quantum of fraudulent Input Tax Credit and the applicant himself has confessed in statement recorded on 20.8.2022 about availing Input Tax Credit of Rs.27.93 Crores on invoices without actual receipt of goods and passing on of ITC of Rs.45.13 crores without actual supply of goods, which stood further corroborated from the GST Returns, E-way Bill analysis etc. Nature of offence is serious and not a mere technical violation of the Act of 2017 and therefore, absence of 5 requirement of custodial interrogation, by itself, is not a sufficient ground for granting anticipatory bail and prima facie case followed by nature of offence is to be considered. Further, mere pendency of petition challenging the order of the Principal Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Raipur does not automatically nullify the criminal prosecution arising out of the material collected during search and seizure by the department. Non appearance of applicant before the court concerned when notice has been served, without reasonable explanation for non-appearance, is indicative of the fact that applicant does not intend to cooperate in the investigation/trial. In view of above he submits that since the applicant fails to make out any reasonable belief that he is likely to be arrested, the anticipatory bail application is liable to be rejected. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 7. Perusal of the order dated 27.2.2026 (Annexure A/2) would show that the Additional Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Raipur has held that applicant is liable for prosecution and therefore appropriate proceeding be initiated against him in accordance with law. In pursuance thereof, a complaint is filed before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur on 20.7.2026 for the offence under Section 132 (1) and 132 (5) of the Act of 2017. Admittedly, complaint is filed before the learned Magistrate. 6 8. In the matter of Sushila Aggarwal vs State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:- “92.1. Consistent with the judgment in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, when a person complains of apprehension of arrest and approaches for order, the application should be based on concrete facts (and not vague or general allegations) relatable to one or other specific offence. The application seeking anticipatory bail should contain bare essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends arrest, as well as his 1980 (2) SCC 565 side of the story. These are essential for the court which should consider his application, to evaluate the threat or apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. It is not essential that an application should be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the facts are clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest.” 9. In case at hand, the complaint filed for alleged offences against the applicant are cognizable and non-bailable. It cannot be said that filing of complaint against an accused for non-bailable offences gives security to that accused that he shall not be remanded in judicial custody on his appearance. Thus, even if only complaint case is filed before the learned Magistrate, if the offence is non-bailable, then there would be genuine apprehension of arrest in the mind of accused. As 7 such, this Court of is of the view that this anticipatory bail application is maintainable. 10. Coming to the merits of anticipatory bail application. Allegations against the applicant is that he has availed Input Tax Credit of Rs.27.93 Crores on invoices without actual receipt of goods and passing on of Input Tax Credit of Rs.45.13 crores without actual supply of goods. Order for recovery of Input Tax Credit fraudulently availed by applicant has already been passed on dated 27.2.2026 together with recommendation for initiation of appropriate prosecution under Section 132 (1) and 132 (5) of the Act of 2017 and in compliance thereof, a criminal complaint for taking cognizance under Section 132 (1) and 132 (5) of the Act of 2017 against the applicant has already been submitted in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, applicant has already caused appearance through his advocate. Hence, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail. 11. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with aforementioned crime, he shall be released on bail upon his executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. The applicant shall also abide by following conditions :- 8 (i) he shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required; (ii) he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) he shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and iv) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of trial. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-