Case Title: Raj Kumar Mishra v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: Gauhati High Court
Petition No.: AB/707/2025
Category: Input Tax Credit (ITC) Fraud, Anticipatory Bail
Date of Judgment: 08.05.2025
Relevant Sections: Section 69, 70, CGST Act, 2017; Section 482 BNSS, 2023
Judge: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Mitali Thakuria
📝 Facts of the Case
(Refer: Para 3, 4, 10, 14)
-
The petitioner, Raj Kumar Mishra, is the proprietor of M/s MRN Metal & Minerals (GSTIN 18ACKPM0634N1Z9), registered under the CGST Act in Assam.
-
A Notice under Section 70 of CGST Act was issued by DGGI Guwahati, alleging ineligible ITC claim of ₹3.42 Crores based on invoices from two entities—M/s Nilima Hardware and M/s P.S. Enterprise.
-
The petitioner had sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, 2023, fearing arrest, after initially failing to appear in person due to medical reasons.
-
He later secured interim pre-arrest bail and appeared before the investigating agency, claiming to have co-operated with the probe.
❓Questions in Consideration
(Refer: Para 1, 9, 13)
-
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under the apprehension of arrest in a CGST evasion case amounting to ₹3.42 Crores.
-
Whether issuance of Notice under Section 70 of the CGST Act, without arrest proceedings initiated under Section 69, justifies pre-arrest protection.
🔍Observations of the Court
(Refer: Para 14)
-
The amount involved is ₹3.42 Crores, which is less than ₹5 Crores and thus, the alleged offence is bailable in nature.
-
The GST department had only issued a notice under Section 70 CGST Act to gather documents for investigation—no arrest warrant or FIR had been initiated.
-
Although the petitioner initially avoided appearance, he later complied with the court’s direction and appeared before GST officials.
-
However, the Court noted from the Case Diary that the petitioner had not fully co-operated with the investigation.
-
The Court held that the conditions necessary for apprehension of arrest do not exist and the bail application is premature.
⚖️Judgment of the Court
(Refer: Para 15–17)
-
The anticipatory bail application was rejected as not maintainable.
-
The interim pre-arrest bail granted on 27.03.2025 was vacated.
-
The petitioner was directed to co-operate fully in the ongoing GST investigation.
📌Between Fine Lines:
-
The High Court refused anticipatory bail where no arrest proceedings had yet begun.
-
GST offence under ₹5 Crores is bailable; hence arrest apprehension must be concrete.
-
Merely receiving a notice under Section 70 doesn’t justify anticipatory bail.
-
Co-operation in investigation is crucial and non-cooperation weakens bail claims.
-
Courts stress on procedural fairness in economic offences, but do not tolerate evasion.
📚 Summary of Referred Cases
| Name of Case | Citation | Summary | Verdict/Observation |
|---|---|---|---|
| P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement | (2019) 9 SCC 24 | Concerned gravity of economic offences; bail must consider seriousness of allegations | Not applicable here due to lower ITC amount |
| Delhi HC Bail Appln. 3771/2021 | Bail Appln. 3771/2021 | Held that offence under GST not punishable with death or life; bail possible with stringent conditions | Cited to argue in favour of bail |
| Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India & Ors. | 2025 SCC OnLine SC 449 | Emphasized anticipatory bail can be granted before FIR if threat of arrest is genuine | Used by petitioner; partially distinguished by Court |
| Deepak Mahajan | Referenced via Radhika Agarwal | Person summoned under Section 70 not necessarily an accused under Article 20(3) | Affirmed by Court |
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
