Dhirendra Singh Vs Principal Commissioner Central GST And Central Excise (Chhattisgarh High Court)
The Chhattisgarh High Court considered the first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by Dhirendra Singh, a Director of M/s Meridian Steels and Infra Private Limited. The applicant apprehended arrest in Complaint Case No. 163/PREV/GST/2025-2026 concerning an offence punishable under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017.
The prosecution alleged that the company availed and utilised inadmissible Input Tax Credit of approximately ₹17.13 crore on the basis of invoices allegedly issued by non-existent entities, resulting in loss of Government revenue. The applicant had been summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act, while co-director Shri Jaideep Singh Chandel had already been arrested. The role of the applicant and other persons connected with the company remained under investigation.
The applicant submitted that he was innocent and had been implicated in connection with business transactions for FY 2025-26. He argued that the allegations were based on documentary material, including GST returns, invoices, E-Way Bills, banking records and electronic data, which were already with the investigating agency. It was also submitted that search proceedings had been conducted and electronic devices and records seized. The applicant relied on a Board Resolution dated 22.10.2025 authorising the co-director to act as the company’s Authorised Signatory for GST-related compliances and sale, purchase and payment matters. He further submitted that the alleged ITC liability had not attained finality and that there was no allegation of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses or obstructing investigation. He expressed willingness to cooperate and appear before the investigating authority as required.
The respondent/department opposed anticipatory bail, submitting that the applicant’s role in the alleged wrongful availment and utilisation of approximately ₹17.13 crore ITC was yet to be fully ascertained. It was contended that custodial interrogation could be necessary to ascertain how the transactions were undertaken and identify persons involved. The department also relied on the magnitude of the alleged tax evasion and the arrest of the co-director.
After hearing both sides and examining the case diary, the High Court noted the serious allegations, the substantial amount involved, the applicant’s position as a company director, and the fact that his role remained under investigation. Considering the ongoing investigation and the necessity of ascertaining the role of the applicant and other persons, the Court held that custodial interrogation could not be ruled out.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court held that the applicant was not entitled to anticipatory bail and rejected the application. The bail application of Dhirendra Singh in the complaint case under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act was accordingly rejected.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 163/PREV/GST/2025-2026 registered at Police Station – Office of the Principal Commissioner Central GST (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that M/s Meridian Steels and Infra Private Limited allegedly availed and utilized inadmissible Input Tax Credit of approximately Rs.17.13 Crores on the basis of invoices allegedly issued by non-existent entities, thereby causing loss of Government revenue. The applicant, being one of the Directors of the said company, has been summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act in connection with the ongoing investigation. It is alleged that the role of the applicant and other persons connected with the company is under investigation, and the co-director, Shri Jaideep Singh Chandel, has already been arrested in the same matter. The applicant, apprehending his arrest, has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case in relation to certain business transactions of M/s Meridian Steels and Infra Private Limited for the Financial Year 2025-26. It is submitted that the applicant has merely been summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, and has not been arrested till date. The apprehension of arrest has arisen primarily due to the arrest of the co-director, Shri Jaideep Singh Chandel. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations are based entirely upon documentary material, including GST returns, invoices, E- Way Bills, banking records and electronic data, all of which are already in the possession of the investigating agency. The department has already conducted search proceedings, prepared panchnama and seized electronic devices and relevant records; therefore, no recovery is required to be effected from the applicant and his custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor warranted.
4. Learned counsel further submits that by Board Resolution dated 22.10.2025, co-director Shri Jaideep Singh Chandel was specifically authorised to act as the Authorised Signatory for GST-related compliances and to deal with sale, purchase and payment-related matters of the company. It is submitted that the alleged wrongful availment of ITC amounting to approximately Rs.17.13 Crores pertains to disputed business transactions which are yet to be adjudicated under the provisions of the CGST Act, and no final determination of the alleged tax liability has attained finality. The arrest of the co-director, by itself, cannot be a ground for arresting the present applicant, as the role and necessity of custodial interrogation of each individual are required to be independently examined. Learned counsel submits that there is no allegation that the applicant has attempted to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses or obstruct the investigation, and all relevant documentary and electronic material is already secured with the department.
5. Learned counsel submits that the applicant has throughout expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and undertakes to appear before the investigating authority as and when directed and to furnish all information and documents required by the department. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh, has deep-rooted ties in society, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or fleeing from justice. It is further submitted that the alleged offence is punishable with a maximum sentence of five years and the trial/investigation is substantially documentary in nature. Relying upon the settled principles governing anticipatory bail and the decisions cited before this Court, learned counsel submits that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required and that his arrest would serve no useful investigative purpose. The applicant is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Hon’ble Court and, therefore, prays that he may kindly be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/department opposes the application and submits that the applicant, being one of the Directors of M/s Meridian Steels and Infra Private Limited, is under investigation in connection with the alleged wrongful availment and utilization of Input Tax Credit of approximately Rs.17.13 Crores on the basis of invoices allegedly issued by non-existent entities. It is submitted that the role of the applicant in the alleged transactions is yet to be fully ascertained and the investigation is still in progress. Learned counsel further submits that the co-director, Shri Jaideep Singh Chandel, has already been arrested in the same matter and that the custodial interrogation of the applicant may be necessary to ascertain the manner in which the alleged transactions were undertaken and to identify the persons involved. It is further submitted that the magnitude of the alleged tax evasion is substantial and, therefore, the applicant does not deserve the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. On these grounds, learned counsel for the respondent/department prays for rejection of the application.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the material available on record, this Court finds that serious allegations have been levelled against the applicant, who is one of the Directors of the company, regarding wrongful availment and utilization of Input Tax Credit of approximately Rs.17.13 Crores on the basis of invoices allegedly issued by non-existent entities. The alleged amount involved is substantial and the role of the applicant in the transactions is still under investigation. The fact that the codirector has already been arrested and that the investigation is in progress cannot be ignored at this stage. Considering the magnitude of the alleged tax evasion and the necessity of the investigating agency to ascertain the role of the applicant and other persons involved in the transactions, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the applicant cannot be ruled out. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
9. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Dhirendra Singh, involved in Complaint Case No. 163/PREV/GST/2025-2026 registered at Police Station – Office of the Principal Commissioner Central GST (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, is rejected.
