The Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected anticipatory bail applications filed by two accused, Rohan Tanna and Chandrasekhar Chandrakar allegedly involved in a large-scale fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) fraud running into approximately Rs. 27 crore.
The bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha observed that economic offences of such magnitude, involving deep-rooted conspiracies and loss to the public exchequer, warrant a strict approach and cannot be treated lightly.
The case arose from investigations conducted by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Raipur Zonal Unit, against a firm—M/s Shrishti Construction—allegedly used as a vehicle for generating and circulating fake invoices without actual supply of goods. The prosecution alleged that fraudulent ITC of over ₹17.18 crore was availed without receipt of goods and fake ITC exceeding ₹10.62 crore was passed on to various entities across multiple States including Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Odisha, and Telangana.
According to the investigation, the firm was found to be non-existent at its declared place of business during inspection. The proprietor claimed that he had handed over GST credentials to one of the accused, who managed all business operations, including filing GST returns and issuing invoices, in exchange for a commission. Statements recorded during investigation, along with bank records and GST portal data, indicated large-scale financial transactions, with nearly ₹17.96 crore credited and debited through bank accounts linked to the firm.
Buy Now: 500+ CGST Notifications (2017–2025) | Clickable Index E-Magazine | Hyperlinked Original PDFs
The prosecution further alleged that the accused persons operated in a coordinated manner, generating fake invoices and routing them through intermediaries to facilitate fraudulent ITC claims. WhatsApp communications and electronic evidence were cited to establish their involvement and coordination in the alleged fraud.
On the other hand, the applicants argued that they had been falsely implicated based primarily on statements of co-accused and that no incriminating material had been recovered from them. They contended that the offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are fiscal in nature, with a maximum punishment of up to five years, and therefore do not justify custodial interrogation. It was also submitted that the evidence was largely documentary and already in possession of the authorities, reducing the need for arrest.
However, the High Court was not persuaded by these submissions. The Court observed that the allegations were supported not only by statements but also by corroborative documentary and electronic evidence, including bank records and digital communications. It held that the contention that the case rests solely on statements of co-accused cannot be accepted at this stage.
Emphasising the seriousness of economic offences, the Court reiterated that such offences constitute a class apart and must be viewed differently in bail matters. It noted that offences involving fake invoicing and fraudulent ITC claims have serious implications for the financial system and public revenue. The Court also took note of the legislative intent reflected in the amendment making certain offences under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act non-compoundable, indicating heightened seriousness.
Importantly, the Court rejected the argument that the documentary nature of evidence negates the need for custodial interrogation. It held that where investigations involve multiple entities, complex transactions, and organised activity, custodial interrogation may still be necessary to unearth the full extent of the conspiracy.
The Court prima facie found that one of the accused played a central role in managing GST operations and financial transactions, while the other acted as an intermediary in circulating fake invoices. It concluded that the applicants appeared to be key conspirators in an organised GST fraud.
The High Court held that no case for grant of anticipatory bail was made out and rejected both applications.
Case Details
Case Title: Rohan Tanna Versus UOI
Citation: JURISHOUR-1010-HC-2026
Case No.: MCRCA No. 353 of 2026
Date: 20/04/2026
Counsel For Applicant: Harshwardhan Parganiha, Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Maneesh Sharma, Advocate
