Gautam Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Gautam Kumar, is accused of offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleges that Pawan Kumar Mahto, owner of Veena Traders, hired Gautam Kumar in 2021 to obtain a GST certificate for his wife's loan application. Gautam allegedly continued filing zero GST returns with the informant's consent, sharing OTPs. A raid by GST officials on May 2, 2024, revealed fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims totaling ₹26,33,051.84 passed from Veena Traders/Sushil Hardware to six firms, despite no purchases in FY 2023-24. The petitioner allegedly used his personal details and Gmail for this scam. The petitioner claims innocence, stating he was authorized to file returns and that the informant has pursued legal remedies regarding penalties.
Held
The Court found the petitioner's actions to be bona fide and not mala fide. It concluded that no offence was made out against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The reasoning appears to stem from the petitioner's submission that he was authorized to file the returns and that the informant had pursued remedies for penalties, suggesting a lack of direct criminal culpability on the petitioner's part for the alleged fraudulent ITC claims. The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to furnishing bail bonds and sureties, and imposed a condition that the petitioner file an affidavit stating he will not involve himself in tax or GST practice. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner's actions constitute offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, considering his role in filing GST returns and the alleged fraudulent ITC claims? (Mixed question of law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends he acted bona fide and was authorized by the informant to file GST returns. He argues that any penalty imposed on the informant's firm is a separate matter for which the informant has already pursued and had dismissed an appeal. He suggests the informant can approach the High Court in writ jurisdiction due to the absence of a functional tribunal. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned APP for the State and the learned senior counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail, implying their belief that the petitioner was involved in the alleged fraudulent activities.
Sections Cited
Sections 406, 420, Section 482(2) of BNSS
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 4 27-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned APP for the State, and the learned senior counsel for the informant.
The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Jalley P.S. Case No. 129 of 2024 registered for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the prosecution case, Pawan Kumar Mahato ran Veena Traders (building materials) and hired Gautam Kumar in 2021 to get a GST certificate for his wife Rekha Devi's loan application under a government scheme (via Sushil Hardware).
2/3 He continued filing zero GST returns with Gautam's help, sharing OTPs despite issues. On 02.05.2024, GST officials raided, revealing fraudulent ITC claims of 26,33,051.84 ₹ passed to six firms from Veena Traders/Sushil Hardware despite zero purchases in FY 2023-24. Gautam used his details and Gmail for the scam.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence. He further submits that he was authorized by the informant to file the GST returns and on instruction, he has filed the GST returns. For the penalty imposed upon the firm of the informant, the informant has legal remedy and in fact the informant had availed that legal remedy of appeal which has been dismissed. He further submits that against the appellate order, the informant can approach this Court in writ juri iction in view of the fact that there is no tribunal functional.
Learned APP for the State and Mr. Mishra, the learned Senior Counsel for the O.P. No.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
I have considered the submissions of the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The action of the petitioner appears to be bona-fide and not mala-fide and in my 3/3 opinion, no offence is made out and therefore, the application is allowed.
Accordingly, let the petitioner, above-named, in the event of arrest or surrender within four weeks from today in the Court below, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Jalley P.S. Case No. 129 of 2024 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
The petitioner, at the time of furnishing bail bonds, shall file an affidavit stating that he will not involve himself in tax or GST practice.
Shishir/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.