JAIDEEP SINGH CHANDEL vs SUPERINTENDENT (PREVENTIVE)

1

CGHC010282822026 2026:CGHC:38396
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 6868 of 2026
Jaideep Singh Chandel S/o Dalbahadur Singh Chandel Aged About 32
Years Director M/s Meridian Steels And Infra Private Limited, R/o 8,
Near Gajraha School, Village - Gajraha, Post Chandwahi, Tehsil -
Bahari, Gajraha, Distt. Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh 486661
... Applicant
versus
Superintendent (Preventive) Office Of The Principal Commissioner,
Central G S T And Central Excise, G S T Bhawan, Dhamtari Road,
Tikrapara, Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate with Shri
Siddharth Dubey & Shri Anmol Varma,
Advocates.
For Non-Applicant : Shri Manish Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board
31/08/2026
1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular
bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with
Complaint Case No./Crime No.163/PREV/GST/2025-26,
PS/Department : Office of the Principal Commissioner, Central
Digitally
signed by
KRISHNA
KUMAR
BARVE
Date:
2026.09.01
11:25:18
+0530
KRISHNA
KUMAR
BARVE

2
GST, District Raipur for offence punishable under Section 132
(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Accused/Applicant is
the Director of the Firm MERIDIAN STEELS AND INFRA
PRIVATE LIMITED having its registered office at Shop No-228,
Karsan Bhai, Chamber, Timber Market, Fafadih, Raipur,
Chattisgarh and is also the authorised signatory of the said firm
for the purpose of GST. As per the prosecution story, the
Central GST Department has received secret/confidential
information that the Applicant / Accused (Director of the Firm
M/S Meridian Steels and Infra Pvt Ltd.) were availing ITC
benefits without supplying the actual goods and were causing
loss to government revenue. Based on this information, the
GST Department conducted search at the official business
address of M/s Meridian Steels & Infra Pvt Ltd on 28.11.2025,
and the entire process was recorded in the panchnama. During
the panchnama proceedings, some incriminating documents
related to the business were also seized. Statement of Mr.
Jaideep Singh Chandel/Applicant was recorded by under
Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. Further case of prosecution
is that, on minute examination of GSTR-2B of M/s Meridian
Steels & Infra Pvt. Ltd., it was found that M/s Meridian Steels &
Infra Pvt. Ltd. had availed ITC illegally to the tune of
₹15,14,84,181/- in the financial year 2025-26 on the basis of

3
bills issued by non- existent fake firms without actually
supplying any goods. Also M/s Meridian Steels & Infra Pvt. Ltd.
has also availed additional (excess) ITC of ₹1,98,39,986/-in
GSTR-3B as compared to GSTR-2B during the financial year
2025-26 and hence a total of Rs.17,13,24,167/- has been
availed from unauthorized Input Tax Credit. Further case of the
prosecution is that on close scrutiny of the said Firm it has also
been found that M/s Meridian Steels & Infra Pvt. Ltd. has
availed ITC on the basis of bogus/fake bills issued by fake/non-
existential firms. The GST registration of these firms has been
cancelled by the GST Department under Section 29, and under
Rule 21 of the CGST Act 2017. The GST Department has also
substantiated the findings by checking the E-way bills and
movement of the vehicles. Statement of the accused/applicant
was recorded on 9.6.2026 and it is alleged that the
accused/applicant has admitted the commission of offence of
availing ITC through fake bills to the tune of Rs.17,13,24,167/-.
The applicant was arrested on the said date. Hence the bail
application.
3. It has been argued by learned Senior counsel for the applicant
that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in
the crime. The allegations levelled against the applicant arise
out of certain business transactions allegedly undertaken during
the Financial Year 2025-26 of M/s Meridian Steels and Infra

4
Private Limited and are based upon disputed questions of fact
which are yet to be established in accordance with law. The
applicant has been implicated during the course of investigation
without there being any material conclusively establishing his
involvement in the alleged offence. No requisites to establish
any offence under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 are
established even prima facie against the Accused/ Applicant.
The quantum and nature of punishment under the GST Act,
2017 is based upon the quantum of tax involved. The
Prosecution has not even determined the quantum, which can
only be decided after assessment (which is even appealable).
The whole allegation is based only upon few unknown
documents seized by the Prosecution and the statement given
by the Applicant/Accused under section 70 of the CGST Act,
2017 and no proper assessment has been done yet. Custody is
unwarranted in documentary investigations, custodial
interrogation serves no purpose and would amount to punitive
detention. The Hon'ble Supreme Court very recently in the case
of Vineet Jain v. Union of India 2025 {LiveLaw (SC) 513} has
held that the offence under Section 132 (1) of the CGST Act,
2017 stipulate a maximum punishment of five (5) years with a
fine and that these cases the Accused shall be is unwarranted
in documentary granted the benefit of bail in normal course
before the Trial Court itself. All the offences under the CGST

5
Act, 2017 are compoundable under Section 138 and hence, the
object and purpose of the CGST Act, 2017 is not penal in
nature, but it is economic for the purpose of legislation being to
recover any amount, that may be due to the Government
exchequer. The applicant does not have any criminal
antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 9.6.2026. Therefore,
the applicant may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
State/non-applicant would oppose the bail application and
submit that the complaint has been filed against the applicant.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the case diary.
6.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case, and the fact that the complaint has already been
submitted against the applicant, the applicant does not have
any criminal antecedents, which is mentioned in the bail
application, the applicant is in jail since 9.6.2026, and
conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the
view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the
present case. Accordingly, the Application is allowed .
7.
If the applicant, Jaideep Singh Chandel , furnishes a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one solvent local surety
to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, he be released on
bail involved in Complaint Case No./Crime

6
No.163/PREV/GST/2025-26, PS/Department : Office of the
Principal Commissioner, Central GST, District Raipur for offence
punishable under Section 132 (1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Order shall be in force till disposal of the case .
-

Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Barve