In Vikram Mandhani vs Union of India, the High Court of Chhattisgarh granted bail in a GST fake invoicing case involving alleged issuance of Rs. 8.57 crore invoices without actual supply. The GST department claimed a network of around 60 fake firms was used to fraudulently pass Input Tax Credit (ITC), with centralized control over registrations, bank transactions, and digital systems. The accused was alleged to have managed backend operations such as login credentials, emails, and commission records. Invoking Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, the department treated the matter as a serious economic offence. However, the Court observed that evidence was primarily documentary and already secured, the charge sheet had been filed, and trial had not commenced despite prolonged custody. Without ruling on guilt, the Court held continued detention unnecessary and granted bail, emphasizing that liberty must be balanced against investigation needs.
Picture this.
A GST investigation is going on. Nothing unusual until the department starts uncovering something bigger. Not just one or two suspicious transactions, but a full network of firms. On paper, they’re trading steel. In reality? The department says no goods ever moved.
Just invoices.
And not small ones—₹8.57 crore worth of invoices.
Now, somewhere in this entire setup, a person named Vikram Mandhani gets pulled in. He’s not even the owner of the main firm under investigation. But the department says he’s part of the backend machinery.
And just like that, he lands in jail.
What exactly was the allegation?
The GST department basically said:
“This isn’t business. This is a system built to generate fake invoices and pass on Input Tax Credit.”
According to them:
Around 60 fake firms were being operated
GST registrations were taken using other people’s documents
Emails, GST logins, E-way bill systems all controlled centrally
Money was routed through banks just to make it look real
And Vikram?
They say he was:
Handling login credentials
Managing email IDs
Maintaining records of commissions
Helping run the whole structure
So, not just a bystander—an active operator, as per the department.
Quick GST reality check
Let’s simplify the legal angle.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017
This is the section that turns a GST issue into a criminal case.
If someone:
Issues invoices without actual supply
Or passes on fake ITC
Then it’s not just a tax dispute anymore—it becomes a prosecutable offence.
Example:
You show a purchase of ₹50 lakh, claim ITC of ₹9 lakh, but no goods ever came.
That ₹9 lakh? That’s where Section 132 steps in.
Section 31 & 35 & 132 of the CGST Act, 2017
Section 31: Invoice must reflect real supply
Section 35: Proper books must be maintained
Fake billing setups usually violate both without even trying.
Now comes the interesting part—what defence was presented to court
Lawyers didn’t deny everything blindly. Instead, they focused on key gaps:
“Show me where he made money?”
“The main beneficiary is someone else.”
“Everything is based on documents, no direct recovery.”
“Charge sheet is already filed—why keep him in jail?”
And then they added a human angle:
No criminal history
Medical condition
Family dependent on him
Basically saying:
“Even if you suspect something, does that justify keeping him locked up indefinitely?”
Department’s response
The GST department didn’t hold back.
They argued:
This is a serious economic offence
Huge loss to government revenue
Strong digital evidence exists
He was actively involved, not just assisting
And the classic line you’ll hear in such cases:
“If released, he may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.”
So what did the Court do?
This is where courts usually take a step back and ask a simple question:
Do we really need to keep him in custody right now?
And the Court noticed a few things:
Most evidence is documents and digital data
Already seized by the department
Charge sheet is filed
Trial hasn’t even started
He’s been in jail since December 2025
And one subtle but important observation:
The issue of whether he actually gained personally is still unclear.
Ordered: Bail granted
The Court didn’t say he’s innocent.
It didn’t say the department is wrong either.
It simply said:
“At this stage, continued custody is not necessary.”
And granted bail with standard conditions.
What does this really mean for us?
This case is not just about one person. It’s a mirror for what’s happening across GST practice today.
- Fake invoicing cases are no longer rare
Earlier, these were occasional.
Now? They are everywhere.
And the department is:
Tracking bank trails
Analysing GST data
Pulling digital evidence
The game has changed.
- Even “support roles” are risky
This is important.
You don’t have to be the owner to get into trouble.
If someone is:
Handling GST logins
Filing returns
Managing backend
They can still be implicated.
- Bail depends more on stage, not just severity
This case shows:
Even in ₹8 crore matters, bail is possible if:
Investigation is complete
Evidence is secured
Trial will take time
- One golden rule
No actual supply = No ITC.
Simple line. Massive consequences.
A small real-life parallel
Let’s say your client tells you:
“Sir, bill toh hai… but goods direct customer ko gaya.”
Or worse:
“Sir, bill toh adjustment ke liye liya hai.”
That’s exactly how these cases begin.
Slowly, it becomes a chain.
Then a network.
Then one day a DGGI summons.
But at the same time, courts are reminding us:
“Investigation is one thing. Personal liberty is another.”
And somewhere between those two, cases like this get decided.
Author Bio
