SC Upholds Rejection of Anticipatory Bail Since GST Alleged Liability Was Below ₹5 Crore Threshold

Harish Wadhwani Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Supreme Court of India)

The case concerned an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), by an applicant apprehending arrest in connection with proceedings initiated by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) for alleged offences under Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Read Chhattisgarh High Court Judgment in this case: Anticipatory Bail Denied as Alleged GST Offence Was Bailable & Non-Cognizable

The applicant contended that he was the authorised signatory of a business entity and that despite searches conducted at his office, no incriminating material had been recovered. He alleged that he had been repeatedly summoned, subjected to prolonged interrogation, threatened with arrest, and coerced into making deposits. According to him, allegations regarding fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) exceeding ₹5 crore had been raised even before completion of the investigation or adjudication proceedings. He also referred to the arrest of certain business associates and argued that these actions reflected a coercive pattern by the investigating authorities. The applicant further stated that his health had deteriorated during a prolonged search conducted on 22–23 January 2026 and maintained that there was a genuine and imminent apprehension of arrest. He expressed willingness to comply with any conditions imposed by the Court and asserted that there was no likelihood of his absconding.

The respondents opposed the application, arguing that the apprehension of arrest was unfounded and that the applicant had misrepresented facts relating to the investigation. It was submitted that the searches had been conducted in a cordial manner and that no coercion, harassment, or medical emergency had occurred. The respondents contended that the arrests of other individuals were unrelated to the applicant’s case. Importantly, they argued that the applicant’s case involved alleged wrongful ITC amounting to ₹1.16 crore, which was below the statutory threshold of ₹5 crore. Consequently, the alleged offence was non-cognizable and bailable under Section 132 of the CGST Act. It was further submitted that summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act formed part of a routine investigation and that no arrest proceedings under Section 69 had been initiated.

After considering the submissions and materials on record, the Chhattisgarh High Court observed that the proceedings against the applicant pertained to a total GST liability of ₹1,16,22,215, of which ₹74,89,846 remained recoverable from the concerned firm. Since the amount involved was less than ₹5 crore, the Court held that the alleged offence fell within the category of non-cognizable and bailable offences under Section 132 of the CGST Act.

The High Court concluded that an anticipatory bail application based merely on apprehension of arrest in relation to a non-cognizable offence lacked merit. Accordingly, it rejected the anticipatory bail application.

The applicant challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition. After hearing the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Supreme Court held that no case had been made out warranting interference with the impugned order of the High Court. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court also directed that all pending applications stood disposed of.

SEO-Friendly Titles with Descriptions

SC Upholds Rejection of Anticipatory Bail Since GST Alleged Liability Was Below ₹5 Crore Threshold

SEO Description: The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s order rejecting anticipatory bail in a GST matter involving liability below ₹5 crore. The ruling reaffirmed that offences falling below the statutory threshold are treated as non-cognizable and bailable under Section 132 of the CGST Act.

SC Refuses Anticipatory Bail Relief as Alleged GST Offence Was Non-Cognizable and Bailable

SEO Description: The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to the rejection of anticipatory bail, noting that the underlying GST offence involved an amount below ₹5 crore. The case highlights the significance of the classification of offences under the CGST Act while considering pre-arrest bail claims.

SC Declines to Interfere with HC Order Rejecting Anticipatory Bail in Sub-₹5 Crore GST Case

SEO Description: The Court upheld the High Court’s finding that the applicant’s apprehension of arrest did not justify anticipatory bail where the alleged offence was non-cognizable and bailable. The Special Leave Petition was accordingly dismissed.

SC Dismisses SLP Against Denial of Anticipatory Bail Due to Bailable Nature of GST Allegations

SEO Description: The Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court’s refusal to grant anticipatory bail in a GST investigation involving alleged ITC irregularities below ₹5 crore. The decision leaves intact the High Court’s reasoning based on the statutory framework of Section 132 of the CGST Act.

SC Holds No Interference Warranted Where HC Rejected Anticipatory Bail in Non-Cognizable GST Matter

SEO Description: The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition after observing that no case for interference had been made out against the High Court’s order. The underlying proceedings related to offences treated as non-cognizable and bailable under the GST law.

FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER

After hearing learned senior counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any case is made out for interference with the impugned order. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Pending applications shall also stand disposed of.