Case Law Details
Harish Wadhwani Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Chhattisgarh High Court)
The Chhattisgarh High Court considered an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with proceedings initiated by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) for alleged offences under Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST/CGGST Act, 2017. The applicant contended that he was a permanent resident of Raipur and an authorised signatory of a business entity whose office had been searched on 18.01.2025 without any incriminating material being found. He alleged that despite cooperating with the investigation and responding to multiple summons, he was repeatedly interrogated, threatened with arrest, and coerced into making deposits. He further argued that allegations of fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) exceeding Rs. 5 crore had been raised before adjudication and that the arrest of certain business associates reflected a pattern of coercive conduct by the investigating agency. The applicant also submitted that during a prolonged search conducted on 22–23.01.2026, his health deteriorated due to mental and physical stress, giving rise to a genuine apprehension of arrest.
Read SC Judgment in this case: SC Upholds Rejection of Anticipatory Bail Since GST Alleged Liability Was Below ₹5 Crore Threshold
Counsel for the applicant argued that the fear of arrest was real and based on objective circumstances, including repeated summons, adverse communications issued prior to adjudication, alleged threats of arrest, and the arrest of persons connected through ordinary business transactions. It was further submitted that the applicant had cooperated throughout the investigation, was willing to comply with any conditions imposed by the Court, and was not likely to abscond.
The respondents opposed the application, contending that it was not maintainable and that the applicant had misrepresented facts by combining details from different proceedings. According to the respondents, the search was conducted in a cordial manner, no coercion or medical emergency occurred, and the applicant voluntarily left the proceedings. It was further submitted that the arrests of other individuals were unrelated to the applicant’s case. The respondents stated that the case against the applicant involved ITC of Rs. 1.16 crore, which was below the Rs. 5 crore threshold prescribed under the GST law, making the alleged offence bailable and non-cognizable. They also argued that summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act formed part of routine investigation and that no arrest under Section 69 had been initiated. Additionally, it was pointed out that proceedings relating to ITC availed from another entity were already under investigation by the State GST authorities and that parallel proceedings by different agencies were impermissible under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
After considering the submissions and the material on record, the High Court noted that the matter related to a total GST liability of Rs. 1,16,22,215/-, of which Rs. 74,89,846/- remained recoverable from the concerned firm. Since the proceedings initiated by DGGI pertained to a liability of less than Rs. 5 crore, the Court held that, under Section 132 of the GST Act, offences involving amounts below this threshold are non-cognizable and bailable in nature. In view of this statutory position, the Court concluded that the anticipatory bail application, founded solely on an apprehension of arrest for a non-cognizable offence, lacked merit. Accordingly, the High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No./Summons (1) IV(6)DGGI/Misc. Enq./RZU/41/2024-25/Gr VIII dated 18.01.2025, (2) GEXCOM/AE/MISC/130/2025-AE-0/o Pr COMMR RAIPUR, dated 25.04.2025 and 15.05.2025, DGGI/INV/GST/2337/2025-GrVIII-0/oADG-DGGI-ZU dated 30.09.2025 registered at Police Station Directorate General Of Goods And Service Tax Intelligence Raipur Zonal Unit, 4th Floor, RIO Complex, Near Fruit, Lalpur, Dhamtari Road, Raipur for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 69 & 132 of CGST/CGGST Act, 2017.
2. Facts of the case are that the applicant, Sh. Harish Wadhwani, is a permanent resident of Raipur and the authorized signatory of M/s Om Kiran !spat Udyog. On 18.01.2025, his office was searched, but no incriminating material was found. Despite this, he was repeatedly summoned, interrogated, and coerced to deposit Rs.88.78 lakh under threat of arrest. Allegations of fraudulent Input Tax Credit exceeding Rs. 5 crores were made prematurely, before any adjudication or completion of investigation. The investigating agency also arrested business associates in connection with routine transactions, showing a coercive pattern. During a prolonged search on 22-23.01.2026, the Applicant suffered health issues due to mental and physical stress. The Applicant has a genuine and imminent apprehension of arrest, hence the present anticipatory bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the apprehension of arrest of the applicant is real, concrete, and based on objective circumstances. He would submit that despite full cooperation with multiple summons, the investigation has assumed a coercive character, as shown by repeated short-interval summons, sustained interrogation, threats of arrest, coercive demands for deposits, issuance of adverse communications without adjudication, and arrest of unrelated business associates. He would submit that the applicant’s apprehension intensified after the communication dated 09.12.2025 alleging fraudulent Input Tax Credit and the subsequent arrest of Mr. Aman Kumar Agrawal and Mr. Vikram Madhani, both connected through ordinary business dealings. He would submit that these actions reflect a clear pattern of coercion, placing the applicant’s liberty under imminent threat. He would submit that further, the reply filed by the non-applicant in Bail Application No.62/2026 has drawn conclusive findings of guilt against the applicant even prior to adjudication. He would submit that the apprehension became acute during the prolonged search on 22-23.01.2026, where arrest proceedings were initiated despite no incriminating material being found, and the applicant’s health deteriorated. He would submit that the applicant is ready to abide by all the directions and conditions which may be imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail and the applicant is permanent resident of Villa no.196, Sapphire Green, Vidhan Sabha Road, Raipur, 492001, there is no likelihood of his absconding, therefore, he submits that the present applicant is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. He would submit that the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is not maintainable. He would further submit that the applicant has mixed facts from multiple proceedings and misrepresented the search and investigation. During the search at the principal place of business, the applicant was physically and mentally fit, present with his brother and staff, and no family members or minor daughters were present. The investigation was conducted in a cordial manner, and no coercion, harassment, or medical emergency occurred. He would submit that the applicant voluntarily left the proceedings without informing the officers. He would submit that the apprehension of arrest is unfounded. He would further submit that arrest of Aman Kumar Agrawal and Vikram Madhani are unrelated to the applicant’s matter, and the case against the applicant involves a total ITC of Rs. 1.16 crore, below the Rs.5 crore threshold, making it a bailable and non-cognizable offence. He would submit that summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act are part of routine investigation, and no arrest under Section 69 was initiated, which requires prior sanction. Further, the matter regarding ITC from Aman Kumar Agrawal’s firm is already being investigated by the Chhattisgarh State GST, and bail has already been granted in that case. He would submit that parallel proceedings by two agencies are impermissible under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. Therefore, there is no imminent threat of arrest, and the applicant’s bail application was rightly rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record, the record shows that matter pertains to a total GST liability of Rs.1,16,22,215/-, out of this, an amount of Rs.74,89,846/- remains recoverable from the applicant’s firm, M/s Jai Bhole Enterprises, Raipur, thus, the proceedings initiated by DGGI against the applicant relate to a liability of less than Rs.5 crore and under Section 132 of the GST Act, offences involving an amount less than Rs.5 crore are non-cognizable and bailable in nature. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS filed by the applicant based on apprehension of arrest for a non-cognizable offence, is devoid of merit.
7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Harish Wadhwani, involved in Crime No./Summons (1) IV(6)DGGI/Misc. Enq./RZU/41/2024-25/Gr VIII dated 18.01.2025, (2) GEXCOM/AE/M ISC/130/2025-AE-0/o Pr COM M R RAI PU R, dated 25.04.2025 and 15.05.2025 (3) DGGI/INV/GST/2337/2025-GrVIII-0/oADG-DGGI-ZU dated 30.09.2025 registered at Police Station Directorate General Of Goods And Service Tax Intelligence Raipur Zonal Unit, 4th Floor, RIO Complex, Near Fruit, Lalpur, Dhamtari Road, Raipur for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 69 & 132 of CGST/CGGST Act 2017 is rejected.
Author Bio
