Rajasthan HC denies Bail to Marble Trader Accused of using Poor People’s Names for GST Fraud [Read Order]
Rajasthan HC denied bail to a 29 years old marble trader for using poor labourers name to evade tax around 40 crore as of now. Investigation is going on.
In a recent ruling, the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur dismissed the bail application of a marble trader accused of creating fake firms in the names of poor labourers to evade Goods and Services Tax ( GST ).
The court observed that the alleged fraud involved a large-scale conspiracy, with the estimated evasion rising from Rs. 10 crore to Rs. 40 crore, and possibly much higher once the investigation is complete.
Narendra Choudhary was arrested in August 2025 and has been in custody since then. His counsel argued that the charge sheet has already been filed, recovery has been made, and he has no prior criminal record. They further argued that the offence is compoundable under the GST Act, that trial proceedings may take years, and that his continued detention causes hardship as he is the sole breadwinner of his family.
They relied on earlier Supreme Court and High Court judgments where bail was granted in tax-related cases.
The Directorate General of GST Intelligence’s counsel opposed the bail plea and explained that the case concerns a serious economic offence carried out in an organized manner. The investigation revealed that around 13 bogus firms were created to move marble illegally across India using e-way bills.
The counsel pointed out that the alleged mastermind, Pawan Regar, who charged Rs. 55,000 per fake firm, is still absconding. The department also argued that the applicant attempted to tamper with evidence during searches and that the scale of evasion is likely to increase further.
The bench comprising Justice Sameer Jain observed that economic offences are distinct and must be dealt with firmly, as they affect public revenue and the financial health of the country. It explained that granting bail at this stage could obstruct the ongoing investigation, especially since several co-accused are yet to be arrested and valuation of the fraud is still in progress.
The court also pointed out that the applicant’s role appeared central to the creation of fake firms and clearance of goods, and that his release could risk further tampering with evidence.
On these grounds, the court held that the bail application could not be allowed at this stage. The application was dismissed, and the applicant remains in custody while the investigation continues.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
