Mr. Aishwarya Yadav vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by Mr. Aishwarya Yadav, a partner in M/s S.S. Industries, who apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.64/GST/2023-2024. The case involves allegations of fake purchase and sale of goods without actual supply, leading to fraudulent availing of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs.27,93,34,219/- and passing on fraudulent ITC of Rs.45,13,52,135/-. The applicant failed to produce supporting documents for his business transactions. An order for recovery of ITC and interest was passed against him by the Additional Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Raipur, on February 27, 2026. Subsequently, a criminal complaint was filed, and the applicant was summoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur.

Held

The Court held that the anticipatory bail application is maintainable. It reasoned that the alleged offenses under Section 132(1) and 132(5) of the Act of 2017 are cognizable and non-bailable. Filing of a complaint for non-bailable offenses does not guarantee that the accused will not be remanded to judicial custody upon appearance. Therefore, a genuine apprehension of arrest exists. Regarding the merits, the Court noted that an order for recovery of fraudulently availed ITC had already been passed, along with a recommendation for prosecution. A criminal complaint had been filed, and the applicant had caused appearance through his advocate. Considering these facts, the Court found the applicant entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. The application was allowed, with directions for release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, and adherence to specified conditions including availability for interrogation, non-inducement of witnesses, not acting prejudicially to the trial, and appearing in court on all dates.

Key Issues

1. Whether the anticipatory bail application is maintainable when a criminal complaint has been filed for non-bailable offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail given the allegations of fraudulent ITC availing and passing on, and the pendency of a writ petition challenging the recovery order? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant contends that he is innocent and has not committed any offense. He argues that since the legality and validity of the recovery order are being questioned in a pending writ petition before the High Court, custodial detention would cause grave prejudice. He asserts that the prosecution is based on documentary evidence already with the department, making absconding or tampering with evidence unlikely. He is willing to abide by any conditions for bail. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents argue that the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable as the applicant's fear of arrest is vague and baseless, as only a notice for appearance has been issued. They highlight the enormous quantum of fraudulent ITC involved, supported by the applicant's alleged confession and corroborating GST returns and e-way bill analysis. They submit that the nature of the offense is serious, and pendency of a writ petition does not nullify the criminal prosecution. Non-appearance without reasonable explanation indicates a lack of cooperation.