The Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, has rejected the anticipatory bail application of Abhishek Tyagi, an individual accused of being a key operator in a network of fictitious online gaming firms allegedly used to evade Goods and Services Tax (GST) exceeding Rs. 1,159 crore.
The anticipatory bail application was filed in connection with a case registered by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Ghaziabad, under Sections 132(1)(a), 132(1)(f), and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017. The order was passed on June 9, 2026, by Additional Sessions Judge Mohammad Aslam Siddiqui.
According to the prosecution, intelligence inputs revealed that several dummy entities, allegedly floated in the names of fictitious persons, were engaged in facilitating online money gaming activities through various websites and applications. Customer payments were reportedly routed through the payment gateway “SabPaisa,” operated by M/s SRS Live Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Investigators alleged that these entities deliberately misclassified their business activities by declaring unrelated HSN codes such as IT services, online content, or goods trading instead of online gaming services. This allegedly enabled them to pay GST at 18% on a nominal commission amount rather than 28% on the full face value of gaming transactions, resulting in substantial tax losses to the government.
The DGGI claimed that online gaming transactions amounting to approximately ₹16,444.96 crore were processed through the payment gateway and that certain firms received thousands of crores of rupees while allegedly evading GST liabilities.
The prosecution specifically alleged that two firms—M/s Dotone Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Rishi Enterprises—were fictitious entities created solely to route gaming-related funds. According to the department, these firms received approximately ₹3,690.88 crore and ₹450.34 crore respectively from online gaming operations.
Authorities contended that physical verification revealed that the firms either did not exist at their declared business locations or lacked any evidence of genuine business activity. Searches, statements, and financial records allegedly indicated that the accused was the actual controller, operator, and beneficiary behind these entities.
The defence argued that the applicant was merely associated with Akonto Payment Solution Pvt. Ltd. and had no connection with the alleged dummy firms. It was submitted that GST liabilities, if any, were the responsibility of other individuals connected with those entities and that the applicant had been falsely implicated.
Counsel further contended that the offence carried a maximum punishment of seven years and that the applicant was seeking anticipatory bail only due to apprehension of arrest. The defence also alleged that statements and documents had been obtained under pressure and maintained that the applicant was willing to cooperate with the investigation.
Opposing the bail plea, Mr. Lakshay Kumar Singh, the SPP on behalf of the GST department argued that the accused played an active role in creating and operating dummy firms used to evade GST on online gaming transactions. The department asserted that evidence gathered under Sections 67 and 70 of the CGST Act indicated that the accused exercised control over bank accounts, credentials, and financial operations of the entities under investigation.
Mr. Kumar further alleged that digital evidence recovered during the investigation showed the accused to be a beneficiary of the business operations and claimed that he had failed to cooperate with repeated summons issued by investigators.
While hearing the matter, the court considered several Supreme Court and High Court decisions emphasizing the seriousness of economic offences. The prosecution cited judgments including Ram Narain Popli v. CBI, Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, and Govind Agarwal v. State of U.P., among others.
These precedents underline that economic crimes involving large-scale public revenue losses must be viewed seriously due to their impact on the country’s financial system and public interest.
After examining the investigation records, statements of key persons associated with the payment gateway, search proceedings, and departmental documents, the court observed that there was credible material linking the accused with the firms under investigation. The court noted that statements recorded during the inquiry identified the accused as a beneficiary and operator of the alleged network.
The court further observed that the accused had not produced documentary evidence to substantiate his defence and that the investigation was still underway. It also took note of the department’s allegation that the accused had not cooperated with the inquiry and had avoided appearance despite summons.
Considering the gravity of the alleged offence, the magnitude of the suspected tax evasion, and the ongoing investigation, the Meerut court held that the case did not warrant the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. The court concluded that there was sufficient prima facie material against the applicant and rejected the anticipatory bail application.
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.
Read More: CA Can’t Be Taxed on Client Funds Used for Statutory Payments: ITAT Deletes Rs. 29.87 Crore Addition
