GST Fraud via Fake Firms and Ineligible ITC u/s 132(1) of CGST Act: Jharkhand HC Grants Anticipatory Bail to Accused [Read Order]
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused in a GST fraud case involving creation of fake firms and passing ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC), observing that no custodial interrogation was required post-investigation
![GST Fraud via Fake Firms and Ineligible ITC u/s 132(1) of CGST Act: Jharkhand HC Grants Anticipatory Bail to Accused [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/07/29/2070454-anticipatory-bail-gst-fraud-cgst-act-taxscan.webp "GST Fraud via Fake Firms and Ineligible ITC u/s 132(1) of CGST Act: Jharkhand HC Grants Anticipatory Bail to Accused [Read Order]")
The Jharkhand High Court has granted anticipatory bail in a case alleging GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) fraud through the creation of fake firms and availing ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC), stating that the investigation was complete and no tampering of evidence was likely. Raaj Jaiswal (petitioner) filed an anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of...
The Jharkhand High Court has granted anticipatory bail in a case alleging GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) fraud through the creation of fake firms and availing ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC), stating that the investigation was complete and no tampering of evidence was likely.
Raaj Jaiswal (petitioner) filed an anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, apprehending arrest in connection with offences under Section 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, and various sections including 34, 120B, 174, 175, 201, 203, 204, 205, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case arose from a complaint investigated by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI). The allegations against the petitioner were that he, along with others, created fake firms in the names of employees to issue bogus GST invoices, thereby passing ineligible ITC and causing financial loss to the State exchequer.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that during the investigation, the petitioner was not arrested, and no arrest warrant was sought. The Petitioner submitted that another co-accused had been granted regular bail by a coordinate bench in B.A. No. 72909 of 2024 dated 26.09.2024.
A single bench comprising Justice Ananda Sen observed that custodial investigation was no longer necessary, and there was no scope for evidence tampering. The court further observed that rejecting the anticipatory bail would serve no useful purpose.
The court directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions including one surety being a close relative and the other a Jharkhand resident with landed property.
The court directed the trial court to frame charges expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments. The anticipatory bail application was allowed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
