Sri Vivek Kumar Gupta vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, Sri Vivek Kumar Gupta. While acknowledging the allegations in the forwarding report that the petitioner was actively involved in the criminal conspiracy, attempted to screen offenders, destroy evidence, and obstruct investigation, the Court took into account the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner and the fact that he had been examined by the police. The Court found it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount. The operative directions included the petitioner appearing before the Investigating Officer when called, not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and not leaving his residence without prior permission from the CJM, Kamrup (M).

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Sri Vivek Kumar Gupta. The FIR was lodged by the Superintendent of State Tax, Guwahati, alleging that a taxpayer, Hrishikesh Kalita, in connivance with others, fraudulently availed input tax credit (ITC) of Rs. 12,10,76,251.70 during the financial year 2025-26 from non-existent firms. Investigations revealed a fake ITC racket operated by Subhajit Bhattacharjee. The petitioner's alleged involvement, as per the forwarding report, was facilitating the removal of another accused before the arrival of the investigating team. The petitioner claims he was not involved in the fraudulent ITC availment itself.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in connection with STF P.S. Case No. 05/2026, registered under Sections 61(2), 318(3), 336(3), 338, and 340(2) of the BNS, 2023, considering the allegations of his involvement in a fraudulent input tax credit racket. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that his sole alleged involvement, as per the forwarding report, was facilitating the escape of another accused, and he was not directly involved in the fraudulent availment of input tax credit amounting to Rs. 12,10,76,251.70. Revenue's (State's) Contention: The State, represented by the GST authorities, contended that there were sufficient materials in the case diary to establish the petitioner's complicity. They further submitted that the petitioner had admitted in his statement to creating fake GST registrations, trade licenses, and other documents to facilitate fraudulent ITC availment.