The Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected the bail application of a 21-year-old accused of orchestrating a multi-crore GST fraud spread across various states. The Court, while denying bail, underscored the gravity of the offence, the pan-India scale of fraudulent operations, and the risk to the ongoing investigation.
The petitioner was arrested on September 30, 2023, in connection with a massive fake invoicing scam involving multiple shell entities.
According to the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Anush Kumar Gangwani operated four firms M/s Naresh Traders, M/s Shri Balaji Enterprises, M/s Gurunanak Sales, and M/s Ganpati Transport & Trading from a single residential address in Raipur. These entities were allegedly used to issue bogus invoices and fraudulently claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) without the actual supply of goods.
Complete GST Act & Rules with amendments made by financial bill, 2025 – CLICK HERE
The department alleged that the accused, through these fake entities, caused a loss of ₹5.53 crore to the public exchequer. The investigation was triggered by intelligence inputs regarding another firm, M/s Radhe Construction, which had passed on fake credits.
The trail led to M/s Ganpati Transport & Trading and eventually to the accused. Upon searching the premises, authorities discovered that several fraudulent GST numbers were linked to the same address.
The Counsel for the applicant argued that since a complaint had already been filed and the initial investigation was complete, no further custodial interrogation was required. The applicant relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Ratnambar Kaushik v. Union of India, asserting that continued detention was unnecessary at this stage.
However, opposing the plea, the Union of India contended that the offence was part of a broader conspiracy with pan-India implications and that the investigation was still ongoing. The authorities expressed concern that the release of the accused at this stage could jeopardize the probe, result in tampering of evidence, or influence potential witnesses.
Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, after considering submissions from both sides, cited the seriousness of the allegations and the calculated manner in which the fraud was allegedly perpetrated. The Court observed that the accused’s actions creating and operating multiple fake firms to siphon off government revenue appeared to be part of a deep-rooted conspiracy carried out with a calculated design for personal profit.
In support of its reasoning, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI and Sandeep Goel v. Union of India, stating that economic offences involving huge public loss demand a stricter view in bail matters.
Understand the complete process and tax nuances of GST refunds, CLICK HERE
The Court reiterated that while bail cannot be denied mechanically, factors such as the seriousness of the offence, risk of witness intimidation, and potential tampering of evidence must be judicially considered.
Accordingly, the Court ruled that the present case was not fit for granting bail and rejected the application under Section 439 of the CrPC. However, it directed the investigating agency to expedite the probe and complete it without undue delay.