Bail Granted in GST Evasion Case Due to Non-Compliance with Arrest Procedure

Case Title: Aniket Sovasaria vs Union of India & Ors.
Court: Gauhati High Court
Petition Number: Bail Appln./1140/2025
Relevant Sections: Section 132(1)(c) of CGST Act, 2017 r/w Section 20 of IGST Act, 2017; Section 69 CGST Act, 2017; Section 483 BNSS, 2023
Category of Dispute: Bail in Alleged Input Tax Credit Fraud
Date of Judgement: 08.05.2025
Relevant CGST Provisions: Sections 69 & 132(1)(c) of CGST Act, 2017
Relevant Criminal Procedure Provisions: Sections 35(3), 41, 41A & 479(2) of BNSS, 2023

Facts of the Case

[Para 3–5]
The petitioner, Aniket Sovasaria, a partner in M/s Aadi Enterprises and M/s Trident Consulting, was arrested in a case involving alleged passing of fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth ₹6.12 Crores without actual supply of goods. He had been in judicial custody for over 98 days. It was alleged that the arrest was carried out without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 41A CrPC (now Section 35(3) BNSS), without fulfilling arrest pre-conditions under Section 69 of the CGST Act, and without any assessment.

Questions in Consideration

[Para 6, 7, 8]

1. Whether the arrest of the petitioner without issuing a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS (Section 41A CrPC) and without authorisation under Section 69 of the CGST Act is illegal.

2. Whether bail should be granted given that charge-sheet has been filed and custody has exceeded 90 days.

3. Whether pendency of another GST evasion case bars bail under Section 479(2) BNSS.

Observation of Court

[Para 10–12]

• The court noted that Section 41A CrPC (Section 35(3) BNSS) notice is mandatory for offences with punishment up to 7 years, which was not followed in this case.

• It relied on the Apex Court rulings in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, where the Court mandated compliance with arrest procedures for such offences.

• The Court held that any non-compliance would entitle the accused to bail.

• While another case was pending, charge-sheet was already filed in the present matter, and the petitioner was in custody for more than three months.

Judgement of the Court

[Para 12–16]
The Gauhati High Court granted bail to the petitioner on furnishing a bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including:

• Not leaving the territorial jurisdiction without permission,

• Regular court attendance and cooperation in trial,

• No inducement or threat to witnesses,

• No similar offences in future.

Breach of any condition would lead to bail cancellation.

Between Fine Lines (Summary in Simple Words):

• The Court granted bail due to procedural lapses in arrest, especially non-issuance of notice under Section 41A CrPC.

• Custodial detention of over 90 days and filing of charge-sheet also weighed in petitioner’s favour.

• The case reaffirms importance of complying with procedural safeguards in arrest.

• Multiple pending cases alone cannot bar bail if pre-conditions under the law are unmet.

• The ruling follows Supreme Court directives ensuring liberty in economic offences unless properly arrested.

Summary of Referred Cases

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.”