Vinay Kumar Tandan vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the applicant, Vinay Kumar Tandan. The decision was based on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that a complaint has already been filed against the applicant and further investigation is ongoing. The Court also took into account that the applicant has been in jail since March 28, 2025, and the conclusion of the trial may take some time. The Court reasoned that these factors make the applicant entitled to be released on bail. The operative directions included furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties, and specific conditions were imposed regarding the applicant's conduct during the trial, including not seeking adjournments when witnesses are present, remaining present on each date fixed, and facing proceedings for misuse of bail liberty or absence as per the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and BNSS.

Facts

The applicant, Vinay Kumar Tandan, is seeking regular bail in connection with a case registered under the CGST Act. The prosecution alleges that he, as the authorized signatory of M/s Oviya Traders, fraudulently availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) of approximately ₹10.38 crore without actual movement of goods, claiming ITC on fake or non-genuine transactions. The GST registration of the firm was cancelled for non-functioning at the declared place of business. The department also points to retrospective cancellation of GST registrations of certain suppliers. The applicant was arrested on March 28, 2025, and has been in judicial custody. The prosecution contends this is a serious economic offense involving substantial wrongful availment of ITC, impacting government revenue.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1)(f) read with other relevant sections of the CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's arguments: The applicant claims false implication based on alleged ITC mismatches, which are issues of statutory interpretation and record-keeping, not fraud or criminal intent. He asserts full cooperation with the investigation, no pending custodial interrogation, and refutes allegations of operating from a non-existent premises with valid documentation. He argues the offense is non-heinous, triable by a Magistrate, and compoundable, citing CBIC guidelines regarding arrest and a precedent (Ashutosh Garg v. Union of India) for bail in similar matters. Non-applicant's (GST) arguments: The non-applicant opposes bail, characterizing the offense as a serious economic offense involving substantial wrongful ITC availment and impact on government revenue. They allege transactions with non-genuine, non-existent, or deregistered firms, indicating fraudulent intent. The mismatch in ITC is seen as a deliberate tax evasion scheme, and the magnitude of the offense raises concerns about tampering with evidence, especially as financial and digital trails are analyzed. They argue economic offenses require strict scrutiny, and granting bail could hamper investigation and set a wrong precedent.