The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to an accused, Saurabh Bansal in a case involving alleged fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth Rs. 26.19 crore through fake invoices under the GST law. The Court held that prolonged custody, the documentary nature of evidence, and the fact that the case is triable by a Magistrate justified the grant of bail.
The bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj passed the order while hearing a petition seeking regular bail in connection with offences alleged under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, read with the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act. The complaint had been filed by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) and was pending before a Judicial Magistrate.
According to the prosecution, the accused had fraudulently availed ITC amounting to ₹26.19 crore on the basis of fake invoices issued by non-existent firms without any actual supply of goods. The investigation allegedly revealed that several invoices showed no real movement of goods, and the vehicle numbers mentioned were either non-existent or registered as two-wheelers, indicating that transportation of goods had not taken place.
The department argued that these discrepancies demonstrated that the invoices were fabricated solely to avail wrongful ITC benefits.
The petitioner contended that the accused was a trader who had procured goods through brokers and was unaware of the original source of the supplies. It was further argued that the accused had cooperated with the investigation and appeared before authorities whenever summoned.
The defence also pointed out that the accused had been arrested after a gap of over one and a half years from the initial inquiry. He had already spent more than five months in custody since his arrest in September 2025. The complaint was still at the pre-charge evidence stage. No recovery proceedings had yet been initiated by the department. The case is triable by a Magistrate, where the maximum punishment is up to five years.
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India, where bail was granted in a GST case after noting that the accused had undergone several months of custody and that the prosecution case was based primarily on documentary evidence.
The Court also referred to Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India, where similar considerations were applied in granting bail in GST-related prosecutions.
After hearing both sides, the Court noted that the accused had already undergone significant custody. The trial was likely to take time as the case was still at the preliminary stage. The matter was triable by a Magistrate. The allegations were based largely on documentary evidence.
Considering these factors, the Court held that continued incarceration was not warranted at this stage.
The Court ordered the release of the accused on regular bail subject to furnishing the necessary bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. It also directed that the accused must not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
The Court clarified that the observations made in the order were only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and would not affect the merits of the case during trial.
Case Details
Case Title: Saurabh Bansal Versus DGGI
Citation: JURISHOUR-134-HC-2026(P&H)Â
Case No.: CRM-M-68325-2025 (O&M)
Date: 24.02.2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Saurabh Goel, Special Public Prosecutor
Read More: Challenge to CCTV Requirement Under Tobacco Packing Machine Excise Rules: Delhi HC Issues Notice
