Manshu Bansal Vs Commissioner of Central GST (Delhi High Court)
SEO Title: GST ITC Investigation: Delhi HC Grants Interim Protection From Coercive Action
Summary: The Delhi High Court, in Manshu Bansal Vs Commissioner of Central GST, granted conditional interim protection against coercive action to a petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an investigation into alleged wrongful availment, utilisation and passing on of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The investigation was being conducted by the Anti-Evasion Wing of Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi (East), concerning transactions involving M/s KB Infra and M/s KB Enterprises. Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the interim order on 29 October 2026 in BAIL APPLN. 4622/2026. The application was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with the corresponding provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The petitioner submitted that he had already joined the investigation on earlier occasions and appeared before the respondent authorities. His counsel further informed the Court that he had deposited Rs. 99,00,000 during the proceedings. These submissions were placed before the Court in support of the request for anticipatory bail and protection against coercive measures. The order did not record any final finding regarding the alleged irregularities in the availment or utilisation of ITC.
The petitioner’s counsel also placed reliance on a press release concerning recommendations of the 57th Meeting of the GST Council. According to the submission recorded in the order, one recommendation related to the removal of arrest permissions under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner additionally relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Radhika Agarwal Versus Union of India and Others, (2025) 6 SCC 545, contending that the Supreme Court had recognised the availability of anticipatory bail remedies in matters arising under the CGST Act. The High Court recorded these arguments without finally adjudicating their merits.
The respondent authorities strongly opposed the anticipatory bail application. Their counsel submitted that summons had been issued to the petitioner on 8 October 2026, after the Trial Court’s order, and alleged that these summons had not been disclosed by the petitioner. The respondent further contended that the petitioner had not cooperated with the investigation. These assertions directly disputed the petitioner’s claim that he had participated in the investigative process.
After considering the submissions, the Delhi High Court issued notice, which was accepted by the respondent’s counsel. The Court directed the respondent to file a reply or status report before the next hearing. Importantly, it ordered that, subject to the petitioner joining the investigation, no coercive steps shall be taken against him until the next date of hearing. The matter was listed for 26 November 2026. The protection was therefore conditional and temporary; the Court did not grant final anticipatory bail or determine the legality of the alleged ITC transactions. In a separate application, the Court also granted exemption from filing certified copies of the annexures, subject to their submission within four weeks.
Cases Discussed
Radhika Agarwal Versus Union of India and Others, (2025) 6 SCC 545 (Supreme Court): Relied upon by the petitioner to support the contention that anticipatory bail is available in proceedings involving the CGST Act. The Delhi High Court recorded the reliance but did not finally decide the question in the present interim order.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The present application has been filed seeking exemption from filing the certified copies of the annexures appended to the captioned bail application, i.e., BAIL APPLN. 4622/2026.
2. Exemption is allowed, subject to filing of the same, within a period of 04 (four) weeks, from today.
3. The application is accordingly disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 4622/2026 & CRL.M.A. 33956/2026
4. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”)/Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, i.e., Sh. Manshu Bansal, S/o Sh. Satyapal Bansal, in connection with the investigation conducted by the respondent, i.e., Anti-Evasion Wing, Central Goods and Services Tax (“CGST”), as regards the alleged wrongful availment, utilisation, and passing on of Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) through M/s KB Infra and M/s KB Enterprises.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation on earlier occasions, and has already appeared before the respondent.
6. Further, she has handed over to this Court, a copy of the Press Release relating to recommendations of the 57th Meeting of the Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) Council, wherein, one of the recommendations is regarding the removal of the arrest permissions under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”).
7. She further submits that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs. 99,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety-Nine Lacs Only).
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment in the case of Radhika Agarwal Versus Union of India and Others, (2025) 6 SCC 545, to submit that even in the cases pertaining to the CGST, the Supreme Court has recognised the right for filing of anticipatory bail.
9. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposes the present application.
11. He submits that after the order passed by the Trial Court, summons were issued by the respondent on 08th October, 2026, which have not been disclosed by the petitioner.
12. He further submits that the petitioner has not cooperated with the investigation.
13. Let reply/Status Report be filed by the respondent, before the next date of hearing.
14. Subject to the petitioner joining the investigation, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner, till the next date of hearing.
15. List on 26th November, 2026.
