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

Chhattisgarh HC Rejects Anticipatory Bail to Director in ₹17.13 Crore GST ITC Case Citing Custodial Interrogation Need

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 10836
Case Name
Dhirendra Singh Vs Principal Commissioner Central GST And Central Excise (Chhattisgarh High Court)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Advertisement

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.

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: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 19,689

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