GSTIN in E-Way Bill Alone Can’t Establish NDPS Conspiracy: Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court has held that the Goods and Service Tax Identification Number (GSTIN) in E-Way Bill alone can’t establish NDPS conspiracy and has granted regular bail to Ranjit Saha, a businessman from Tripura, who was arrested in connection with a major narcotics case involving the seizure of 30,576 bottles of Eskuf cough syrup containing Codeine Phosphate. The Court observed that the prosecution's case against the accused rested primarily on the fact that his firm's GSTIN appeared in e-way bills accompanying the consignment and that the alleged narcotic substance was concealed inside palm oil containers purportedly destined for his business establishment. However, the Court found that no further material had been produced to demonstrate his conscious involvement in the alleged trafficking operation. Massive Recovery of Codeine-Based Cough SyrupInvestigation Leads to GST Registration HolderDefence Claims GSTIN Was MisusedCourt Finds Lack of Independent EvidenceApplication of Section 37 NDPS ActBail GrantedCase Details Massive Recovery of Codeine-Based Cough Syrup According to the prosecution, on 25 August 2025, officers of Bazaricherra Police Station in Assam received specific intelligence regarding a six-wheeler truck allegedly transporting a large quantity of Codeine Phosphate-based cough syrup from Kolkata towards Churaibari. After obtaining authorization under Section 41(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, a search operation was conducted at Churaibari Watch Post. During the search, the police intercepted the vehicle and allegedly recovered 392 palm oil tin containers concealed in a hidden compartment of the truck. Upon inspection, the containers were found to contain 30,576 bottles of Eskuf cough syrup containing Codeine Phosphate and Chlorpheniramine Maleate. Two individuals travelling with the vehicle were immediately apprehended. Investigation Leads to GST Registration Holder Subsequent investigation led the authorities to arrest two additional persons, including Ranjit Saha. The prosecution alleged that scrutiny of transport documents and e-way bills recovered from the vehicle revealed that the GST number mentioned therein belonged to "Maa Sushila Agency," a business owned by the petitioner in Tripura. Investigators further alleged that the agency dealt in agro-products, including palm oil, and that the seized contraband had been concealed within palm oil containers marked for delivery to the petitioner's firm. According to the charge sheet, the use of genuine e-way bills and the petitioner's GST registration number constituted evidence of a forward linkage in the trafficking chain and indicated conscious facilitation of the offence. Defence Claims GSTIN Was Misused The petitioner challenged these allegations and contended that he had no connection with either the truck or the contraband recovered from it. He argued that he was engaged in the grocery business and that his GST registration number had been misused by unknown persons involved in the trafficking operation. The defence also highlighted that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation from the beginning. Notices under Section 67 of the NDPS Act had been issued to him on two occasions, and he had responded in writing as well as appeared personally before the investigating authorities. It was argued that such conduct was inconsistent with that of a person knowingly involved in a narcotics trafficking network. Court Finds Lack of Independent Evidence While examining the case record, Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma noted that charges had already been framed against the accused. However, the Court found significant deficiencies in the prosecution's material. The Court observed that the alleged consignors identified in the e-way bills—Meera Trade Exim and Radha Agency of West Bengal—had merely been issued notices under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and that the investigation had not progressed meaningfully against them. Importantly, none of the witnesses or co-accused persons had implicated the petitioner. The Court further noted that apart from the appearance of the GSTIN in the e-way bills, there was no documentary evidence demonstrating any commercial dealings between the petitioner's firm and the alleged consignors. There were also no call detail records or other communication evidence showing any connection between the petitioner and the co-accused persons or suppliers. The Court recorded that the defence argument that the GST number could have been used without the petitioner's knowledge had not been effectively rebutted by the prosecution. Application of Section 37 NDPS Act The case was particularly significant because offences involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act attract the stringent conditions contained in Section 37. Under this provision, bail can ordinarily be granted only when the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. After examining the available material, the Court held that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner may not be guilty of the offence alleged against him. The Court clarified that such a finding did not amount to a declaration of innocence but merely indicated the existence of a plausible case in favour of the accused at the bail stage. The Court also found no material suggesting that the petitioner was likely to engage in similar offences if released. Bail Granted Taking these circumstances into account, the Gauhati High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. The Court directed his release upon furnishing a bail bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The Court also imposed standard conditions requiring the accused to regularly attend the trial proceedings and refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. Case Details Case Title: Ranjit Saha Versus State Of Assam Citation: JURISHOUR-1502-HC-2026(GAU) Case No.: Bail Appln./911/2026 Date: 29.05.2026 Counsel For Appellant: H R Choudhury, Z Hussain Counsel For Respondent: PP Click Here To Read Order Read More: DGFT Expands QCO Exemption for SEZ Imports

GSTIN in E-Way Bill Alone Can’t Establish NDPS Conspiracy: Gauhati HC

Membership Required

Latest articles

Can Courts Assess Sufficiency of Material Behind a Look-Out Circular? Delhi High Court Defines Limits of Judicial Review

No Further GST Recovery After More Than 10% Demand Recovered: Calcutta High Court Lifts Bank Account Attachment Pending Appeal

TESTING THE LIMITATIONS OF SECTION 107(4) OF THE CGST ACT, 2017: An exercise in futility?

Orissa High Court Grants 8 Weeks to Assessee to Approach CESTAT After Supreme Court’s Revised Canon India Ruling

More like this

Can Courts Assess Sufficiency of Material Behind a Look-Out Circular? Delhi High Court Defines Limits of Judicial Review

No Further GST Recovery After More Than 10% Demand Recovered: Calcutta High Court Lifts Bank Account Attachment Pending Appeal

TESTING THE LIMITATIONS OF SECTION 107(4) OF THE CGST ACT, 2017: An exercise in futility?

About us

Company

Categories