Shri Harshvardhan Alias Harshvardhan vs. Union Of INDIA Through Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence

Held

The Court, considering the submissions of both counsels and the facts discussed, is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner has been in custody since February 11, 2026, which is over four months. The Court also took into account the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Ratnambar Kaushik vs. Union of India, where bail was granted in a similar scenario involving a significant amount and where the petitioner had undergone substantial incarceration. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's continued detention, given the duration and the nature of evidence (primarily documentary and electronic), might not be necessary. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of ₹5,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount. Conditions include cooperation with the trial, furnishing mobile number and Aadhar Card, and an undertaking not to change the mobile number or disturb witnesses.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Harshvardhan, has approached the Jharkhand High Court seeking bail in Complaint Case No. 391 of 2026. The case was registered for alleged offences under various sections of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner is accused of fraudulently availing and utilizing Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to ₹15.83 crores, acting as the husband and power of attorney holder for the proprietor of M/s. Raghupati Steel Traders. The petitioner has been in custody since February 11, 2026, for over four months. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Jamshedpur Regional Unit, is the opposite party.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail considering the amount of alleged fraudulent ITC availed and utilized, and the provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, specifically Section 132(1)(c), 132(1)(f), 132(1)(l), and 132(5)? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argues that the case is similar to the Supreme Court case of Ratnambar Kaushik vs. Union of India, where bail was granted. In that case, an amount of ₹11 crores and odd was shown as cess without proof of manufacture, leading to a projected value exceeding ₹15 crores. The petitioner highlights that the punishment under Section 132(1)(l)(i) can extend to five years and a fine. Given that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for more than four months, and the evidence is primarily documentary and electronic, the petitioner should be granted bail on the principle of parity. The petitioner also undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not disturb witnesses. Revenue's Arguments: The learned counsel for the opposite party opposes the prayer for bail.