The Chhattisgarh High Court has granted regular bail to a businessman accused of fraudulently availing and utilising input tax credit exceeding ₹9.54 crore, taking into account the filing of the charge-sheet, his period of incarceration and the fact that his only criminal antecedent dated back to 2018.
The bench of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey allowed the bail application observing that the circumstances justified his release without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution’s case. The court also considered that the offences under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, were non-bailable and compoundable.
Buy Now: 160+ GST E-Magazine September 2026
According to the prosecution, the accused proprietor of M/s Maya Steel & Enterprise and M/s Mayra Steel Enterprises, fraudulently availed and utilised input tax credit exceeding ₹9.54 crore.
The order records that the Deputy Commissioner, State GST, registered an FIR against him on July 20, 2026. He was arrested in connection with Crime No. Arr 05/2026 registered at SGST, Naya Raipur, in Raipur district.
The proceedings concerned offences under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i) and 132(5) of the CGST Act. Yadav approached the High Court through his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Advocates Vikalp Sharma and Palash Soni, appearing for the applicant, submitted that the charge-sheet had already been filed and that their client had been in jail since July 20, 2026.
They further argued that the offences under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) were non-bailable but compoundable. Addressing his criminal history, the defence submitted that he had only one criminal antecedent, registered in 2018, and sought his release on bail.
The State opposed the application. Deputy Advocate General Dr. Saurabh Pande, along with Deputy Government Advocate Kawaljeet Singh Saini, submitted that the applicant had fraudulently availed ITC of ₹9.54 crore, causing a loss to the public exchequer.
The prosecution also relied on the applicant’s previous criminal antecedent to argue that bail should be refused.
After hearing both sides and examining the material on record, the High Court considered the nature of the allegations alongside the applicant’s custody period and the stage of the proceedings.
The court specifically took note that the charge-sheet had been filed and that the applicant’s sole criminal antecedent was from 2018. It also considered the non-bailable and compoundable nature of the offences under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c).
On an assessment of these circumstances, Justice Pandey concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail and allowed the application.
The High Court directed that Yadav be released upon executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court.
His release is subject to conditions prohibiting him from directly or indirectly inducing, threatening or promising anything to a person acquainted with the case to discourage disclosure of facts to the court.
He must also refrain from acting in a manner prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial and appear before the trial court on every date fixed until the proceedings conclude.
The High Court expressly clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the bail application. The trial court must determine the case independently on its merits. The order therefore grants conditional release while leaving the allegations of fraudulent ITC availment and utilisation to be adjudicated at trial.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
