Sri Surajit Barman vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court decided to grant bail to the petitioner, Sri Surajit Barman, considering he had been in custody for 44 days and his statement had been recorded. The Court found it fit and proper to enlarge him on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one local surety of like amount. The reasoning for granting bail was primarily based on the duration of custody and the fact that the investigation was ongoing, with the petitioner's cooperation being a key factor. The Court imposed several conditions on the bail, including mandatory appearance before the Investigating Officer when called, cooperation with the investigation, production of relevant documents, non-tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, not leaving his place of residence without permission, not using the GST portal for any GST-related transactions during the pendency of the trial, appearing before the Trial Court on fixed dates, and not interfering with the fair conduct of the trial. The Court did not explicitly decide on the guilt or innocence of the petitioner regarding the allegations of fraudulent ITC availment or the violation of Section 16(2) of the Assam GST Act, 2017, as this was a bail application.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Surajit Barman, sought bail in connection with STF P.S. Case No. 05 of 2026. The FIR, lodged on 10.07.2026 by the Superintendent of State Tax, alleged that the petitioner, in connivance with others, fraudulently availed input tax credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 12,10,76,251.70 during the financial year 2025-2026 from fictitious firms without actual supply of goods or services. This allegedly caused a substantial loss to the government exchequer, in violation of Section 16(2) of the Assam GST Act, 2017. The FIR further stated that a fake ITC racket was operated from Kolkata, and the petitioner was involved in creating and managing GST registrations in Assam for generating fake invoices. The petitioner had been in custody for 44 days.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, who claims not to be registered under the GST regime and not to have access to the GST portal, could be involved in generating fake invoices for fraudulent ITC availment, as alleged by the State under Section 16(2) of the Assam GST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he is not registered under the GST regime and lacks access to the GST portal, therefore, the allegation of generating fake invoices is unfounded. He asserted his non-involvement in the alleged offense and claimed false allegations were made against him. Revenue/State's arguments: The State argued that statements from co-accused and witnesses specifically implicated the petitioner in the organized fraudulent ITC network. They claimed the petitioner played an active role in generating fake invoices and facilitated the use of his GST-registered concerns, thereby gaining access to the GST portal, which contradicted the petitioner's submissions.