Chandan Kumar Alias Chandan Kumar Rai vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court considered the submissions of both parties. It noted that the proprietor of M/S Assam Bitumix is someone else, and the petitioner's role was limited to looking after the day-to-day activities of the firm. Based on this distinction, the Court found it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The reasoning hinges on the petitioner's alleged indirect involvement rather than direct proprietorship or primary responsibility for the fraudulent transactions. The Court directed the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Kamrup(M). The conditions imposed include appearing before the Investigating Officer when called, not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and not leaving the jurisdiction without court permission. No specific GST provisions were discussed in detail, but the context of ITC and fake invoices implies a connection to GST regulations.

Facts

The petitioner, Chandan Kumar alias Chandan Kumar Rai, sought bail in connection with Case No. 02/2026 registered at the Special Task Force Police Station, Assam. The FIR, lodged on 23.05.2026, alleged that certain entities availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) by generating fake invoices from non-existent taxpayers and from taxpayers whose registrations were cancelled. Allegations of fraudulently claiming ITC and engaging in bogus billing were made against M/S Barrel Bitumen and other concerns. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner is not the proprietor of M/S Assam Bitumix, but merely looks after its day-to-day affairs, and that the authorized representative, Shri Amit Kumar Jha, is involved in illegal activities. The State contended that the petitioner is in custody and responsible for maintaining the company's records, thus liable for illegal activities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is liable for the alleged illegal activities of M/S Assam Bitumix, particularly concerning the fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) through fake invoices and bogus billing, under the relevant provisions of the BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) and GST laws, considering he is not the proprietor but manages its day-to-day affairs? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner is not the proprietor of M/S Assam Bitumix and is only involved in its day-to-day operations. The alleged illegal activities are attributed to the authorized representative, Shri Amit Kumar Jha. Revenue/State's Argument: The State contended that the petitioner, being in custody and responsible for maintaining the company's records, is liable for the illegal activities undertaken by the company.