Case Law Details
Aman Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)
The Chhattisgarh High Court has granted bail to Aman Kumar Agrawal, a proprietor accused of fraudulently availing approximately ₹23.08 crore in Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the CGST Act, 2017. The court’s decision came in a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
According to the prosecution, Agrawal, operating two firms, M/s Agastya Enterprises and M/s Agrawal Enterprises, allegedly claimed ITC of ₹9 crore and ₹14.08 crore, respectively, without the actual receipt of goods or services. The defense argued that the essential elements of the offenses under Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act were not met, as tax liability had not yet been assessed or quantified. The defense also cited Supreme Court precedents like Arnesh Kumar, Satender Kumar Antil, and Vineet Jain, arguing that the mandatory safeguards for arrest were not followed. They also noted that other high courts had held that arrest under the Act was not justified without proper assessment and notice.
After reviewing the case, the Chhattisgarh High Court determined that bail was appropriate. The court’s decision was based on the fact that the investigation was complete, the formal complaint had already been filed, and the trial was expected to be lengthy. Agrawal, who had been in custody since June 10, 2025, was ordered to be released on a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one solvent surety. The court’s order will remain in effect until the case is disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. Arr. 01/2025 registered at Police Station Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, New Raipur Division, District Raipur (C.G.) offences punishable under Section 69,132(1)(B)(c) of C.G. GST Act 2017.
2. The prosecution is that, the applicant is proprietor of the firm M/s Agastya Enterprises who has been found to have claimed and availed Input Tax Credit of ₹ 09 crore without actual receipt of goods. Furthermore, while acting in the capacity of proprietor of another firm, M/s Agrawal Enterprises, the applicant is alleged to have claimed and availed Input Tax Credit of ₹ 14.08 crore without actual receipt of goods or services, by showing purchases from non-existent businesses. Based on the complaint filed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, New Raipur Division, offences under section 69, 132 (1) (B) (C) of CG GST Act, 2017 has been registered against the present applicant.
3. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case under the CGST Act, 2017. No requisites to establish offences under Sections 69 and 132 are made out, as neither assessment nor quantification of tax liability has been determined, and no loss of ₹ 14 crore as alleged has been caused to the Government exchequer. The maximum punishment under the Act is up to five years, yet the mandatory safeguards laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar, Satender Kumar Antil, and Vineet Jain have not been followed. The Prosecution has failed to show that the applicant retained any benefit, no unexplained cash has been recovered, and all offences under the Act are compoundable under Section 138, showing that its object is fiscal and not penal. Various High Courts, including Bombay, Calcutta, and Andhra Pradesh, have held that arrest under the Act cannot be justified without proper assessment, notice, and opportunity of hearing. The investigation is complete, the complaint has already been filed, no further recovery is pending, and the applicant has cooperated throughout. Being a permanent resident with no likelihood of absconding, the applicant is ready to furnish adequate security and abide by all conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant opposed the bail application of the present applicant but could not dispute the fact that the complaint has been filed against the applicant.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and further the fact that the complaint has already been filed against the applicant/accused, and that the applicant has been in jail since 10.06.2025, with the conclusion of the trial likely to take some more time, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant – Aman Kumar Agrawal, is allowed.
7. If the applicant, Aman Kumar Agrawal, furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, he be released on bail involved in Crime No. Arr. 01/2025 registered at Police Station Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, New Raipur Division, District Raipur (C.G.) offences punishable under Section 69, 132(1)(B)(c) of C.G. GST Act 2017. Order shall be in force till disposal of the case.
Author Bio
