Manish Kumar Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence, Chandigarh
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.09.07 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-35651-2026(O&M) and CRM-M-35345-2026 2 Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate, Mr. Rishabh Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Gurjinder Singh Thind, Advocate For the petitioner in CRM-M-35345-2026. Mr. Naman Jain, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Udit Jain, Advocate for the respondent. *** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
, J.
Both petitions under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seek regular bail in case FIR No. Int/Intl/414/2026-Group D, o/o ADG, DGGI-ZU Chandigarh dated 01.05.2026 under Sections 132(1)(A) read with Section 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 and Section 20(XV) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, punishable under Section 132(1)(I) of the Act. Both are first petitions for regular bails.
The case, as set up by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Chandigarh is that both petitioners were involved in large scale organized and multi-layered scheme involving clandestine supply of online money-gaming services, including real-money card games such as Teen Patti and Rummy, through a network of sham/dummy companies, with the clear object of suppressing actual taxable receipts and evading payment of GST. The transactions were rooted through payment gateways, bank accounts and entities which were either non-genuine or created for facilitating the illegal arrangement. The taxable receipts were grossly suppressed in the GST returns, causing substantial loss of revenue to the Government. It is alleged that Manish Kumar Aggarwal was the was the CEO of M/s. Dhanik Traders (OPC) Private Limited, the Central nodal payment hub for the entire scheme, in which hundreds of crores were routed. AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.09.07 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-35651-2026(O&M) and CRM-M-35345-2026 3 Narinder Singh Sahdev was the Director of M/s. Dhanik Traders (OPC) Private Limited and Proprietor of M/s Vansh Enterprises. Both of them directed their Chartered Accountants to file GST returns of all the firms declaring only commission and not the actual gaming receipts. M/s. Dhanik Traders was the Central Nodal/payout account for the entire network and its associated website was set up as a e-commerce portal, but no products were ever sold through it and the actual business was pay-in and payout for online gaming. A web of multiple companies-registered as skill-based gaming or e- commerce operators-served as pay-in entities receiving gaming deposits through payment gateway M/s. Airpay Services Pvt. Ltd. All the companies in the network were found to be non-existent or non-functional at their registered principal places of business. The directors were dummy directors and the actual management, banking operations and compliances were handled entirely by both petitioners. Evasion of GST was approximately Rs. 156 crores.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that entire case of the department was based on documents which were already seized by the investigating agency. The whatsapp chats and disclosure statements of co- 2026.09.07 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-35651-2026(O&M) and CRM-M-35345-2026 4 behind bars. Investigation against the petitioners was complete and further pre-trial detention of the petitioners would serve no purpose. Petitioners had always been co-operating during investigation. Both petitioners who were in custody for the last 04 months, deserved to be enlarged on regular bail.
Learned counsels for the respondents have opposed the prayer for regular bail submitting that petitioners meticulously planned and executed scheme of tax frauds involving deliberate suppression of supply, creation of a web of non-existent or non-functional companies, systematic under-reporting in GST returns and active concealment of true nature of transactions. Grant of bail to the petitioners would undermine the administration of tax laws. Loss of revenue to the Government was about 156 crores and substantial documentary, digital and financial documents were collected against the petitioners indicating their complicity. Both petitioners had central and primary role and considering the gravity of the offences, the pivotal role of the petitioners and the largescale tax evasion racket involving multiple sham/dummy entities, petitioners did not deserve 2026.09.07 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-35651-2026(O&M) and CRM-M-35345-2026 5 (2023) 8 Centax 224 (SC), Sandeep Goyal Vs. Union of India SB Criminal while deciding prayer for bail, the Apex Court observed as under: “We are surprised to note that in a case like this, the appellant has been denied the benefit of bail at all levels, including the High Court and ultimately, he was forced to approach this Court. These are the cases where in normal course, before the Trial Courts, the accused should get bail unless there are some extra ordinary circumstances.”
Identical were the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashutosh Garg Vs. Union of India 2024(105) GST 572 and Vipin Garg @ complete and charge sheet was filed; that offence under Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was punishable with imprisonment upto 05 years and fine; that accused had already undergone AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.09.07 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-35651-2026(O&M) and CRM-M-35345-2026 6 incarceration of 04 months; that completion of trial was likely to take time, directed release of the petitioner on bail.
Co-ordinate Benches of this Court also, in similar 19173, CRM-M-64134-2023 titled Tejpal Singh Vs. Director General of 2026.09.07 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-35651-2026(O&M) and CRM-M-35345-2026 7 Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for which the petitioners have been arrested, punishable with maximum imprisonment of 05 years, are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Undeniably, the evidence proposed to be led is documentary in nature and the witnesses sought to be produced are official ones. As such, the chances of petitioners influencing the witnesses or tampering with evidence are negligible. Petitioners have roots in the society. Trial is yet to commence and conclusion thereof by an early date, does not appear to be a possibility. Further detention of the petitioners would not serve any useful purpose. Therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, both petitions are allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail subject to their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate and further subject to following conditions:
The petitioners will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
The petitioners shall surrender their passport and will not leave the country without the permission of the Trial Court.
The petitioners will not change their residence without prior intimation to the Department and the trial Court.
The petitioners will not influence the prosecution witnesses.
The petitioners will furnish an undertaking by way of their affidavit(s) before the trial Court that they will appear on each and every date fixed, unless their presence is exempted by a specific order of the Court. AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.09.07 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-35651-2026(O&M) and CRM-M-35345-2026 8
The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the one involved in this, which they are accused of, or for commission of which they are suspected of.
The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.
The petitioners shall not in any manner misuse their liberty.
Any infraction shall entail in withdrawal of the benefit granted by this Court.
Learned trial Court would, however, be at liberty to impose any other condition as may be deemed fit.
In case, the petitioners, fail to abide by the conditions, the respondent-department may seek cancellation of their bail.
Pending CRM(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
JUDGE 07.09.2026 Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.09.07 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.