Meerut Court Denies Bail in Rs. 14.17 Crore Fake ITC Case, Citing Gravity of Economic Offence Under CGST Act

The Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, has rejected the bail application of an accused charged with availing and passing on fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth over Rs. 14.17 crore. The bench of Additional Sessions Judge Achal Narain Saklani that the seriousness of the allegations and the material collected during investigation did not warrant grant of bail at this stage. The case arises out of an investigation conducted by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Ghaziabad Regional Unit, which claimed to have unearthed a well-organised racket involving the availing and passing on of fake ITC on the basis of bogus invoices without any actual supply of goods. According to the prosecution, intelligence inputs revealed that multiple firms were engaged in circular trading and paper transactions solely to generate ineligible ITC and pass it on to beneficiary entities for commission. Search operations were conducted on October 30, 2025, at various residential and business premises connected with the accused persons. During these searches, the department claimed to have recovered incriminating documents, digital evidence including WhatsApp chats, and unaccounted cash of ₹30.5 lakh from the residence of a co-accused. The investigation allegedly revealed that fraudulent ITC running into several crores was availed through non-existent and suspicious supplier firms. The prosecution contended that the applicant had admitted, in his statement recorded on October 30, 2025, to having availed and passed on fake ITC amounting to ₹14.17 crore through five non-genuine supplier firms. It was alleged that the accused not only used such fake ITC to set off outward tax liability but also passed it on further to other beneficiaries, earning commission in the process. The department further argued that WhatsApp chats retrieved from the mobile phones of the accused and co-accused clearly demonstrated coordination in issuing fake invoices and managing cash transactions linked to bogus billing. These, along with corroborative statements of other accused persons, were relied upon to establish prima facie involvement in a deep-rooted conspiracy to defraud the exchequer. The applicant argued that the arrest was illegal and carried out in violation of safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court. It was submitted that no summons were issued prior to arrest, no proper panchnama showing recovery from the applicant was prepared, and mandatory videography of search and arrest was not conducted. The defence also highlighted alleged discrepancies in the computation of the ITC amount and claimed that no concrete documentary evidence, such as invoices, bank statements, or audit reports, was produced before the court at the time of remand. It was argued that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, was engaged in legitimate business, and had been falsely implicated merely on the basis of statements and unverified assumptions. The court noted that the allegations pertained to fraudulent availment and passing on of ITC on a large scale, involving non-existent firms and paper transactions. The court reiterated that economic offences constitute a distinct class and must be viewed seriously due to their adverse impact on the economy and public interest. The court observed that such offences are committed with deliberate design and careful planning, unlike crimes committed in the heat of the moment. Considering the gravity of the offence, the nature of evidence collected so far, and the larger interest of the State and public revenue, the court held that it would not be appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the bail application filed under Sections 132(1)(b), (c) and (i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail stage and would not prejudice the merits of the case during trial. Case Details Case Title: Sushant Goel Versus UOI Case No.: First Bail application No. 6570 of 2025 Date: 18.12.2025 Counsel For Petitioner: Special Prosecutor for the Department Lakshya Kumar Singh Counsel For Respondent: Sambhav Patel Click Here To Read Order Read More: Supreme Court Upholds Landowner Primacy and Green Space Protection in Mumbai Slum Row

Meerut Court Denies Bail in Rs. 14.17 Crore Fake ITC Case, Citing Gravity of Economic Offence Under CGST Act

Membership Required

Latest articles

Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation? Supreme Court Issues Notice

Legal Notice Alone Can’t Establish Tax Liability: CESTAT

License Fee, Technical Assistance Charges Not Includible In Customs Value Unless They Are a Condition of Sale: CESTAT

Investment in Mutual Funds Not ‘Trading’, No CENVAT Credit Reversal Required for Redemption of Units: CESTAT

More like this

Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation? Supreme Court Issues Notice

Legal Notice Alone Can’t Establish Tax Liability: CESTAT

License Fee, Technical Assistance Charges Not Includible In Customs Value Unless They Are a Condition of Sale: CESTAT

About us

Company

Categories