Judgment
1
CGHC010278912026
2026:CGHC:33237
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1235 of 2026 Dhirendra Singh S/o Shri Dharm Raj Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o Jawahar Park, Kotar Kala, Ward No. 06, Kotwali Sidhi, District- Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh 486661
...Applicant
versus Office Of The Principal Commissioner Central Gst And Central Excise, Gst Bhawan, Dhamtari Road, Tikrapara, Through Harpreet Singh Sandhu, Superintendent, Raipur (C.G.) ...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Anmol Verma, Advocate.
For respondent : Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate.
Hon'ble
Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board 31.07.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 163/PREV/GST/2025-2026 registered at Police Station - Office of the Principal Commissioner Central GST VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.08.03 10:49:05 +0530
2 (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that M/s Meridian Steels and Infra Private Limited allegedly availed and utilized inadmissible Input Tax Credit of approximately Rs.17.13 Crores on the basis of invoices allegedly issued by non-existent entities, thereby causing loss of Government revenue. The applicant, being one of the Directors of the said company, has been summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act in connection with the ongoing investigation. It is alleged that the role of the applicant and other persons connected with the company is under investigation, and the co-director, Shri Jaideep Singh Chandel, has already been arrested in the same matter. The applicant, apprehending his arrest, has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case in relation to certain business transactions of M/s Meridian Steels and Infra Private Limited for the Financial Year 2025-26. It is submitted that the applicant has merely been summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, and has not been arrested till date. The apprehension of arrest has arisen primarily due to the arrest of the co-director, Shri Jaideep Singh Chandel. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations are based entirely upon documentary material, including GST returns, invoices, E-
3 Way Bills, banking records and electronic data, all of which are already in the possession of the investigating agency. The department has already conducted search proceedings, prepared panchnama and seized electronic devices and relevant records;
therefore, no recovery is required to be effected from the applicant and his custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor warranted.
4. Learned counsel further submits that by Board Resolution dated 22.10.2025, co-director Shri Jaideep Singh Chandel was specifically authorised to act as the Authorised Signatory for GST-related compliances and to deal with sale, purchase and payment-related matters of the company. It is submitted that the alleged wrongful availment of ITC amounting to approximately Rs.17.13 Crores pertains to disputed business transactions which are yet to be adjudicated under the provisions of the CGST Act, and no final determination of the alleged tax liability has attained finality. The arrest of the co-director, by itself, cannot be a ground for arresting the present applicant, as the role and necessity of custodial interrogation of each individual are required to be independently examined. Learned counsel submits that there is no allegation that the applicant has attempted to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses or obstruct the investigation, and all relevant documentary and electronic material is already secured with the department.
4 5. Learned counsel submits that the applicant has throughout expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and undertakes to appear before the investigating authority as and when directed and to furnish all information and documents required by the department. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh, has deep-rooted ties in society, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or fleeing from justice. It is further submitted that the alleged offence is punishable with a maximum sentence of five years and the trial/investigation is substantially documentary in nature. Relying upon the settled principles governing anticipatory bail and the decisions cited before this Court, learned counsel submits that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required and that his arrest would serve no useful investigative purpose. The applicant is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Hon’ble Court and, therefore, prays that he may kindly be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/department opposes the application and submits that the applicant, being one of the Directors of M/s Meridian Steels and Infra Private Limited, is under investigation in connection with the alleged wrongful availment and utilization of Input Tax Credit of approximately Rs.17.13 Crores on the basis of invoices allegedly issued by non-existent entities. It is submitted that the role of the applicant in the alleged transactions is yet to be fully ascertained
5 and the investigation is still in progress. Learned counsel further submits that the co-director, Shri Jaideep Singh Chandel, has already been arrested in the same matter and that the custodial interrogation of the applicant may be necessary to ascertain the manner in which the alleged transactions were undertaken and to identify the persons involved. It is further submitted that the magnitude of the alleged tax evasion is substantial and, therefore, the applicant does not deserve the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. On these grounds, learned counsel for the respondent/department prays for rejection of the application.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the material available on record, this Court finds that serious allegations have been levelled against the applicant, who is one of the Directors of the company, regarding wrongful availment and utilization of Input Tax Credit of approximately Rs.17.13 Crores on the basis of invoices allegedly issued by non-existent entities. The alleged amount involved is substantial and the role of the applicant in the transactions is still under investigation. The fact that the co- director has already been arrested and that the investigation is in progress cannot be ignored at this stage. Considering the
6 magnitude of the alleged tax evasion and the necessity of the investigating agency to ascertain the role of the applicant and other persons involved in the transactions, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the applicant cannot be ruled out. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
9. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Dhirendra Singh, involved in Complaint Case No. 163/PREV/GST/2025- 2026 registered at Police Station - Office of the Principal Commissioner Central GST (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, is rejected.
Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha CHIEF JUSTICE
vaibhav