Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Goods and Services Tax

Anticipatory Bail Denied in ₹3.12 Crore Fake GST Invoice Case: Gauhati HC

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 12531
Case Name
Bhuban Nath Vs State of AP (Gauhati High Court)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Subscribe to download.

Already Upgraded? Log in.

Advertisement

Bhuban Nath Vs State of AP (Gauhati High Court)

Summary: The Gauhati High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Bhuban Nath under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in connection with Aalo P.S. Case No. 20/2026 registered under Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the informant, proprietor of M/s Kiko Enterprises, had entrusted ₹57 lakh to the accused persons between 25.08.2024 and 07.02.2025 for filing GST returns and paying GST and other taxes. Instead of making the required payments, fake GST invoices and inputs were allegedly generated and furnished, resulting in Government liabilities of ₹3,12,87,855. The materials before the Court further indicated that an agreement dated 09.02.2026 acknowledged receipt of ₹57 lakh and the outstanding Government liability of ₹3,12,87,855, with an undertaking to discharge the liability within one month.

A post-dated cheque for ₹3,12,87,855 was subsequently dishonoured. The prosecution also submitted that an arrested co-accused had stated during investigation that the fake GST invoices were generated by the applicant and that the applicant had failed to appear before the investigating officer despite issuance of notice under Section 35(3). Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the amount involved, alleged use of forged/fake GST invoices, materials collected during investigation, statement of the co-accused and failure to appear before the investigating officer, the Court held that custodial interrogation might be necessary for effective and proper investigation. It therefore declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS and rejected the prayer for pre-arrest bail.

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: Graduate, CA in Job / Business, DD
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 22,592

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.