Harish Wadhwani vs. Directorate General Of GST Intelligence ( Dggi)

Held

The Court held that the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS is devoid of merit. The Court considered the facts and circumstances, including the submissions of both parties and the materials on record. It was noted that the matter pertains to a total GST liability of Rs. 1,16,22,215/-, out of which Rs. 74,89,846/- remains recoverable from the applicant's firm, M/s Jai Bhole Enterprises, Raipur. Consequently, the proceedings initiated by the DGGI against the applicant relate to a liability of less than Rs. 5 crore. Under Section 132 of the GST Act, offences involving an amount less than Rs. 5 crore are classified as non-cognizable and bailable in nature. Therefore, an anticipatory bail application based on the apprehension of arrest for a non-cognizable offence is not maintainable. The Court rejected the application.

Facts

The applicant, Harish Wadhwani, authorized signatory of M/s Om Kiran Ispat Udyog, filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS. He apprehended arrest in connection with investigations by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) and the Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Raipur. The DGGI initiated proceedings based on alleged fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) exceeding Rs. 5 crores. The applicant's office was searched on January 18, 2025, but no incriminating material was found. Despite this, he was repeatedly summoned and interrogated. The applicant claims he was coerced to deposit Rs. 88.78 lakh under threat of arrest. He also alleges a coercive pattern, including the arrest of business associates and a prolonged search on January 22-23, 2026, during which he suffered health issues due to stress. The applicant contends that the investigation has assumed a coercive character, with adverse communications issued without adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 BNSS is maintainable, considering the nature of the alleged offence under the CGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the applicant has a genuine and imminent apprehension of arrest, warranting the grant of anticipatory bail? Petitioner's Arguments: Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the apprehension of arrest is real and based on objective circumstances, citing repeated short-interval summons, sustained interrogation, threats of arrest, coercive demands for deposits, issuance of adverse communications without adjudication, and the arrest of unrelated business associates. They highlighted that the communication dated December 9, 2025, alleging fraudulent ITC and the subsequent arrests of Mr. Aman Kumar Agrawal and Mr. Vikram Madhani, intensified the apprehension. They also contended that the respondents' reply drew conclusive findings of guilt prior to adjudication and that arrest proceedings were initiated during a prolonged search despite no incriminating material being found. The applicant is a permanent resident and willing to abide by any conditions. Respondents' Arguments: Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer, arguing that the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable. They claimed the applicant misrepresented facts, stating the search and investigation were conducted cordially without coercion or medical emergency. They asserted that the applicant voluntarily left proceedings and that the apprehension of arrest is unfounded. They further argued that the arrests of Mr. Agrawal and Mr. Madhani are unrelated, and the total ITC involved in the applicant's case is Rs. 1.16 crore, below the Rs. 5 crore threshold, making it a bailable and non-cognizable offence. Summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act are routine, and no arrest under Section 69 was initiated without prior sanction. They also raised the issue of parallel proceedings by two agencies being impermissible.