Rajasthan HC Denies Bail in Rs. 95 Crore Online Gaming GST Evasion Case Involving DGGI

The Rajasthan High Court has denied bail in Rs. 95 Crore online gaming GST evasion case involving Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (DGGI). The Justice Sameer Jain has ejected the regular bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 in a massive Rs. 95-crore GST evasion case linked to online gaming transactions, holding that the allegations reveal a serious economic offence, with substantial evidence of structured evasion, use of shell entities, and possible foreign links. According to DGGI’s investigation, certain private limited companies—Invoestr Global Pvt. Ltd., Involanding Games Pvt. Ltd., and Chefbiz Spices Pvt. Ltd.—were allegedly onboarded on multiple payment platforms for receiving online gaming revenues. The department claimed online receipts spanning ₹90 crore+ were detected through various UPI IDs/VPAs. An admitted amount of ₹53.21 crore was received in the name of one entity alone. A further ₹342.04 crore was collected through additional virtual payment addresses of the three companies. The revised GST evasion figure reported in the final complaint dated November 10, 2025, stood at ₹95.77 crore, significantly higher than the earlier estimate of ₹11.20 crore. Searches were conducted on September 10, 2025, at business premises and residences of the directors. Statements under Section 70 of the CGST Act indicated that credentials of the companies were allegedly shared with a person referred to as "Jagdish alias DJ Jaggi", and communications surfaced with a foreign-based contact saved as “Outman” (said to be from China–Hong Kong). The accused were arrested on September 12, 2025, and have remained in custody. The applicants argued that the individuals were merely facilitators, earning commissions for onboarding entities onto payment aggregators. The alleged violations fall under the CGST Act, where the maximum punishment is five years, and offences are triable by a Magistrate. The investigation concluded with the filing of the final complaint; hence continued custody was unnecessary. Arrests violated the Finance Ministry’s GST Investigation Guidelines (Clause 3.5), which discourage arrest in technical interpretation disputes. The applicants should not be treated as “deemed suppliers” of online gaming services. Multiple judgments of the Supreme Court and Rajasthan High Court support liberal bail in GST cases. The department opposing bail submitted that the scale of transactions was gigantic, with structured GST evasion running into tens of crores. GST returns of the concerned companies were NIL, and registrations were suo motu cancelled. Electronic evidence, statements, and money trails demonstrated deliberate evasion. There existed a tangible risk of tampering with digital evidence, influencing payment intermediaries, or fleeing, especially given the overseas communication link. Under Section 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, evasion exceeding ₹5 crore is a cognizable and non-bailable offence. The High Court held that the alleged evasion of ₹95+ crore squarely triggers Section 132(1)(i), making the offence non-bailable. The case involves white-collar crime, posing substantial harm to the nation’s economic structure. Statements recorded under Section 70 revealed that the applicants admitted that the companies’ credentials were provided for online gaming transactions. The Court noted “cogent documentary and electronic evidence” supporting DGGI’s case. Given the involvement of multiple VPAs, foreign-linked communication, and digital trails, there was a real possibility of interference with evidence. The Court emphasized that digital financial crimes permit easy dissipation or destruction of evidence. The applicants allegedly concealed the true magnitude of transactions and evasion. The High Court concluded that the magnitude of evasion, nature of allegations, prima facie material, risk of tampering, and flight risk collectively make the case unfit for bail at this stage. The Court therefore dismissed both bail applications, clarifying that the observations apply only to bail consideration and do not determine guilt or innocence. Case Details Case Title: Manoj Kumar Versus State of Rajasthan Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13655/2025 Date: 6.12.2025 Counsel For Petitioner: Naqvi Sehban Najib Counsel For Respondent: Bharat Vyas, AAG Click Here To Read Order Read More: Chhattisgarh High Court Grants Bail in Allegedly Creating Fake Invoices, E-way Bills Without Actual Supply Of Goods

Rajasthan HC Denies Bail in Rs. 95 Crore Online Gaming GST Evasion Case Involving DGGI

Membership Required

Latest articles

Jurishour | Tax Law Daily Bulletin : April 17, 2026

Use of Word ‘Can’ in Arbitration Clause Not Mandatory: Supreme Court

Illegal Sand Mining in Chambal Sanctuary: Supreme Court Flags “Complete Administrative Failure”, Orders CCTV Surveillance, GPS Tracking and Strict Action

Supreme Court Upholds Limited Regularisation but Strikes Down Blanket Future Policy for Ad Hoc Employees

More like this

Jurishour | Tax Law Daily Bulletin : April 17, 2026

Use of Word ‘Can’ in Arbitration Clause Not Mandatory: Supreme Court

Illegal Sand Mining in Chambal Sanctuary: Supreme Court Flags “Complete Administrative Failure”, Orders CCTV Surveillance, GPS Tracking and Strict Action

About us

Company

Categories