Regular bail granted in GST prosecution where complaint was filed, antecedents were absent, and trial would be prolonged.

The applicant, a Director and authorised signatory of Meridian Steels and Infra Private Limited, was arrested in connection with Complaint Case/Crime No. 163/PREV/GST/2025-26 for an alleged offence under Section 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”).

The Central GST Department searched the company’s premises on 28 November 2025, seized business-related documents, and recorded the applicant’s statement under Section 70 of the CGST Act.

On scrutiny of the company’s GST returns, the Department alleged that the company had fraudulently availed input tax credit (“ITC”) of ₹15,14,84,181 on invoices issued by non-existent or fake firms, along with excess ITC of ₹1,98,39,986, totalling ₹17,13,24,167.

The applicant filed his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), asserting false implication, absence of a completed assessment, the documentary nature of the evidence, lack of criminal antecedents, and prolonged custody.

The prosecution opposed bail and submitted that the complaint had already been filed.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

The prosecution alleged an offence under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act concerning the alleged availment of ITC through invoices or bills without actual supply of goods.

In determining bail, the Court considered the procedural stage of the case, the filing of the complaint, the applicant’s period of custody, absence of criminal antecedents, and the likelihood that the trial would take time.

The applicant also relied on Section 138 of the CGST Act concerning compounding and on Vineet Jain v. Union of India, stated to concern the grant of bail in CGST offences; however, the order’s operative reasoning primarily rests on the case-specific bail factors recorded in paragraph 6.

The Court did not finally adjudicate whether the alleged ITC claim was fraudulent or determine the applicant’s guilt.

For the purpose of bail, it noted that the complaint had already been submitted, thereby reducing the immediate need for custodial detention, while the applicant had remained in custody since 9 June 2026 and had no criminal antecedents.

Given the documentary nature of the investigation, the completion of the complaint stage, and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time, the Court concluded that continued incarceration was not warranted pending trial.

These factors outweighed the seriousness of the alleged tax evasion for the limited purpose of deciding the bail application.

Release was conditional upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one solvent local surety to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

The bail order was directed to remain in force until disposal of the case.