Case Law Details
Jitendra Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court)
The Rajasthan High Court allowed a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner, who had been arrested on 24.03.2026 by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Jaipur, in connection with alleged offences punishable under Section 132(1) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had earlier been denied bail by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan-II on 07.05.2026.
According to the petitioner, he was a partner in M/s Alpha Pigment, which commenced business operations on 31.10.2025. The Department alleged that the petitioner supplied lead ingots and batteries worth approximately ₹53,16,70,780 to eight firms without issuing proper invoices and without payment of GST during the period from 23.01.2025 to 18.02.2026. The petitioner contended that the Department relied upon invoices relating to a period when the firm was not even registered, wrongly included those invoices in the firm’s transactions, and calculated the alleged GST liability on that basis. He also disputed the allegations regarding valuation, submitting that the lead ingots were produced from scrap batteries and that the Department’s valuation and assessment of turnover were superficial, arbitrary, and incorrect. The petitioner further relied on judgments where bail had been granted in similar matters, considering factors such as prolonged incarceration, filing of the complaint, the offences being triable by a Magistrate, and carrying a maximum punishment of five years.
The respondent Department opposed the bail application, submitting that the complaint disclosed GST evasion of approximately ₹10 crores through illegal supply of lead ingots by using various illegal invoices without payment of GST. It argued that the allegations were serious and that the petitioner should not be enlarged on bail.
After considering the material on record, the High Court noted that the allegations related to non-payment of GST of approximately ₹10 crores under Section 132(1) of the RGST Act, 2017. The Court observed that the petitioner had been arrested on 24.03.2026, the investigation had been completed, a charge-sheet in the form of a complaint had already been filed before the competent court, and no further interrogation or recovery was stated to be required.
The Court also noted that the petitioner’s firm was alleged to have supplied lead ingots extracted from scrap batteries. During the hearing, the Court sought clarification from the respondent regarding the basis of GST assessment, its calculation, and the alleged non-payment. The respondent stated that the assessment had been made on the basis of certain recovered invoices.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, including that the alleged offences were triable by a Magistrate and punishable with a maximum sentence of five years, the absence of proper assessment of the value of the goods in question in relation to the alleged violation, the grant of bail by coordinate Benches in similar circumstances, completion of investigation, filing of the complaint, and the fact that no further judicial custody or interrogation was required, the High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the petitioner on furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 along with two sound and solvent sureties of ₹50,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial court. The petitioner was directed not to misuse the liberty granted, and the Court clarified that the observations made in the bail order would have no bearing on the trial.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483, B.N.S.S., 2023 by the petitioner -Jitendra Yadav S/o Mali Ram Yadav, who was arrested on 24.03.2026 by Directorate General of GST (Intelligence) (DGGI), Japur in connection with Case No. DGGI/INV/GST/528/2026-Gr F-O/o ADG DGGI-ZU-Jaipur, against the offences punishable under Section 132(1) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RGST, 2017’), after his bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-II vide order dated 07.05.2026.
2. Mr. Ranjan Mehta, learned counsel, submitted that the petitioner is a partner in a firm, namely M/s Alpha Pigment, having GSTIN No.08ACLFA7018B1ZN, which commenced its business operations with effect from 31.10.2025. It is also submitted that the respondent-Department registered a case against the petitioner alleging supply of goods without issuing invoices, and clandestine removal of goods in violation of Section 132(1) of RGST Act, 2017. Counsel further argued that the respondent have alleged that the petitioner supplied lead ingots and batteries worth approximately Rs. 53,16,70,780/- to eight firms without proper invoices and without payment of GST during the period from 23.01.2025 to 18.02.2026.
3. Learned counsel submitted that on the basis of search, as conducted, respondent alleged to have collected certain invoices pertaining to a period when the firm was not even registered, have counted those invoices against the petitioner’s firm and on that basis, have calculated the alleged non-payment of the GST. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged violations are seriously objected. He further submitted that lead ingots allegedly sold by the firm were taken out from the scrap batteries and the alleged valuation carried out by the Department is superficial/arbitrary. Learned counsel further added that the Department has incorrectly assessed the turnover of the petitioner’s firm by treating it as a large commercial concern having enormous turnover, whereas the facts are otherwise.
4. In his concluding submissions, learned counsel relied upon certain judgments, wherein Courts, while dealing with similar allegations, granted bail considering several grounds including the long incarceration of the accused, the filing of the complaint, the offences are triable by Magistrate and carry maximum punishment for a term of five years. In view of the above, learned counsel prayed that the bail application filed by the petitioner may be allowed.
5. Per contra, Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Senior Standing Counsel for the CGST Department, strongly opposed the bail application. He submitted that there has been a serious violation of the provisions of GST Act, 2017, as the complaint clearly discloses evasion of GST amounting to approximately Rs.10 crores due to illegally supplying lead ingots through various illegal invoices without payment of the requisite GST. Therefore, in terms of the law as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the allegations are serious in nature and the offences are punishable under the provisions of GST Act. Hence, the present petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. This Court has considered the fact that the allegations against the petitioner pertain to non-payment of GST amounting to approximately Rs. 10 crores, in violation of Section 132 (1) of the RGST Act 2017. This Court further noted that the petitioner was arrested on 24.03.2026 and after completion of the investigation, the respondent Department has already filed charge-sheet in the form of a complaint before the concerned Court and no further interrogation or recovery is stated to be required from him.
8. This Court also noted that the petitioner’s firm is alleged to have sold the lead ingots taken out from scrap batteries and supplied to various firms. During the course of hearing, this Court specifically asked learned counsel for the respondent regarding the interrogation conducted by them with respect to the basis of GST assessment, its calculation and the non payment of the same. However, it was stated that on the basis of certain invoices as recovered, they have made their assessment and have calculated the alleged amount pertaining to non-payment of GST.
9. Be that as it may.
10. After considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, including the fact that the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by Magistrate, punishable for a maximum term of five years’; absence of proper assessment of the value of the goods in question for which violation under the provisions of RGST Act, 2017 as alleged; the Co-ordinate Benches have granted bail in similar circumstances; moreso, that the investigation has already been completed in the present case; the complaint has already been filed and no further judicial custody and interrogation of the petitioner is required, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
11. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Jitendra Yadav S/o Mali Ram Yadav shall be released on bail in connection with Case No. DGGI/INV/GST/528/2026-Gr F-O/o ADG DGGI-ZU-Jaipur, provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-along with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.
12. The petitioner is further directed not to take undue advantage of liberty. It is made clear that the observations as made by this Court in the bail application will have no bearing on the trial of the case.
Author Bio
