Pre-Arrest Bail Denied in Fake ITC Trading Allegations

Case Details

• Case Title: Ripan Jain v. Additional Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ludhiana and another

• Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

• Petition Number: CRM-M No.20055 of 2025 (O&M)

• Date of Judgement: 28.04.2025

• Relevant Section: Section 482, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017

• Category of Dispute: Fake Invoicing & Input Tax Credit (ITC) fraud – Bail application

Facts of the Case

1. The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS against complaint No. DIN No.202502DNN5000000BP68 registered under Sections 132(1)(b) & 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 (¶2).

2. Allegations state that the petitioner created three firms – M/s Disha Enterprises, Sarthak Enterprises, Kashbhi Accessories Point – and issued fake invoices without actual supply of goods (¶2).

3. Petitioner contended he was falsely implicated, claiming he was neither proprietor nor partner of the firms and had no role in the alleged fraud (¶3).

4. Investigation revealed statements of Saurabh Goyal, Director of M/s Jay Kay Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd., who confirmed petitioner provided GST numbers and accounts of these firms for fake transactions (¶4–5).

5. Evidence indicated ITC worth ₹84.19 crore was availed on fake invoices and parallel invoices were issued to multiple firms (¶7).

Question in Consideration

• Whether the petitioner, allegedly involved in creating and operating bogus firms for trading fake invoices and availing fraudulent ITC, deserves the concession of pre-arrest bail? (¶2, ¶5.1, ¶8)

Observations of the Court

1. The petitioner was identified as the managing person behind the firms and actively involved in fake invoice trading (¶5, ¶7).

2. Statements and documentary evidence prima facie establish his role in providing GST details, generating invoices, and enabling fraudulent ITC claims (¶7).

3. Court noted custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the truth, given the complexity and magnitude of the fraud (¶8).

Judgement of the Court

• The Court dismissed the petition for pre-arrest bail, holding that the petitioner’s complicity was apparent and custodial investigation was indispensable (¶9).

• It clarified that the observations were not to be construed as findings on merits of the case (¶11).

Between Fine Lines

• The petitioner sought protection from arrest in a GST fake ITC scam.

• Investigation showed he managed firms issuing invoices without supplying goods.

• Statements linked him to ₹84.19 crore fraudulent ITC availment.

• The Court held custodial interrogation necessary.

• Pre-arrest bail was denied to prevent evasion of investigation.

Summary of Referred Cases

(No external precedents were cited in this judgement; only statements of co-accused/witnesses were relied upon.)

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.”