State of Chhattisgarh Vs Aman Singh (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The matter arose from an investigation concerning alleged fraudulent Input Tax Credit of Rs. 11,08,79,628/-, allegedly availed without actual supply of goods through suspicious transactions involving 13 high-risk suppliers. The respondent, Aman Singh, was stated to be the proprietor of M/s Khayati Enterprises, which mainly dealt in scraps. During the investigation, the department prepared a Panchnama dated 08/03/2025. Thereafter, summons under Section 70 of the Chhattisgarh State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were issued on 22/04/2025 and again on 25/04/2025 after the respondent did not appear pursuant to the first summons.
The respondent apprehended arrest in connection with an offence punishable under Section 132 of the CGST Act. His anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court was rejected on the ground that he was not cooperating with the investigation. He thereafter approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
High Court Proceedings and Ruling
Before the High Court, the respondent submitted that he had been summoned under Section 70 for recording his statement and apprehended that he would be arrested as soon as he appeared before the authorities. He relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 449.
The State submitted that issuance of summons under Section 70 did not, per se, make the respondent an accused. It contended that the authority could arrest him if, after recording his statement, it had reason to believe that the statutory requirements were satisfied.
The High Court, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the submissions of the parties and the fact that the investigation was still continuing, granted anticipatory bail without commenting on the merits of the case. It directed that, in the event of arrest, Aman Singh would be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and one surety in the like amount, subject to specified conditions, including non-interference with witnesses, compliance with the trial proceedings and not involving himself in a similar offence.
Challenge Before the Supreme Court
The State challenged the High Court’s order dated 05.08.2025 granting anticipatory bail in relation to the summons issued under Section 70 and the alleged offence under Section 132 of the CGST Act. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
The Supreme Court noted the allegation concerning suspicious transactions with 13 high-risk suppliers and fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit of Rs. 11,08,79,628/- without actual supply of goods. It observed that entries and records of books of accounts would be relevant to the matter. During the hearing, it was also informed that the respondent was already in custody in another case.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning and Ruling
After hearing the parties at length and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court held that granting pre-arrest bail for the reasons stated in the High Court’s order was not justified. It accordingly set aside the High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail.
The Supreme Court directed that the respondent be taken into custody in the present case as well and subjected to custodial interrogation, as contended, for the purpose of ascertaining the truth and to supply the document.
The Supreme Court, however, clarified that setting aside the anticipatory bail order would not prevent the respondent from applying for regular bail.
The criminal appeal was accordingly allowed and any pending applications were disposed of.
Read High Judgment in this case: Aman Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1) Leave granted.
2) The State has preferred this appeal assailing order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the High Court 1 allowing MCRCA No. 919 of 2025 preferred by the respondent herein and granting him anticipatory bail in relation to summons issued under Section 70 of the Chhattisgarh State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(hereinafter referred to as ‘CGST Act’), by the Office of the Commissioner of State Tax, 1 High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, for the offence punishable under Section 132 of the CGST Act.
3) We find that the allegation of suspicious transactions with 13 high-risk suppliers, including availing fraudulent Input Tax Credit of Rs. 11,08,79,628/- without actual supply any goods, has been alleged in the present case, to which entries would be relevant along with records of books of accounts.
4) During the course of the hearing, it was informed that the respondent is already in custody in another case.
5) After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, in our view, granting of pre-arrest bail for the reasons as stated in the impugned order by the High Court is not justified. Accordingly, the impugned order granting anticipatory bail stands set aside.
6) The respondent be taken into custody in present case as well, and subjected to custodial interrogation, as contended, for the purpose of ascertaining the truth and to supply of the document.
7) We make it clear that the setting aside of the order of anticipatory bail would not come in the way in case the respondent applies for grant of regular bail.
8) The criminal appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
1) Leave granted.
2) The criminal appeal allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
