P&H HC grants Bail to CA Assistant Accused of Generating Fake GST Bills in ₹66 Cr Tax Evasion Case [Read Order]
Court said continued detention during the pendency of trial would not serve the ends of justice and granted bail to the accused stating the principle “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”
![P&H HC grants Bail to CA Assistant Accused of Generating Fake GST Bills in ₹66 Cr Tax Evasion Case [Read Order] P&H HC grants Bail to CA Assistant Accused of Generating Fake GST Bills in ₹66 Cr Tax Evasion Case [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/05/15/2137035-site-img15-3jpg.webp)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a Chartered Accountant (CA)’s assistant accused in a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) fake billing and tax evasion exceeding ₹66 crore.
As per the order, a criminal complaint was filed by the CGST authorities under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017.
According to the prosecution, the accused Ravi Kumar, who worked as an assistant in the office of a Chartered Accountant and was also a law graduate, was allegedly involved in filing fake GST returns, generating fake invoices and e-way bills, and preparing forged documents to facilitate wrongful tax evasion.
The department claimed that the illegal billing scheme led to misappropriation and the fraudulent use of tax benefits of more than ₹66 crore. The bail request was vehemently opposed by the GSTdepartment.
On behalf of the petitioner, his counsel submitted that Ravi Kumar was merely an office assistant working under a Chartered Accountant and did not derive any direct financial benefit from the alleged transactions.
Also Read:GST Cancellation Order without following Procedures as per FORM GST REG-19: Gauhati HC Restores Taxpayer’s Rights with Fresh Opportunity [Read Order]
The petitioner also asserted that the Chartered Accountant under whom the petitioner worked had not even been arrayed as an accused in the complaint.
Justice H.S. Grewal observed that the alleged offences were triable by a Magistrate and that the petitioner had already gone through approximately six months of incarceration out of the maximum prescribed sentence of five years.
Thus, the Court held that continued detention during the pendency of trial would not serve the ends of justice and granted bail to the accused stating the principle “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”.
However, the Court clarified that if the petitioner is found involved in any other criminal activity while on bail, the authorities would be free to seek cancellation of bail.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates


