ORDER
1. Heard Mr. B D Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S C Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, GST.
2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused petitioner, namely, Bahadur Islam praying for grant of bail in connection with Anti Evasion Unit, CGST, Guwahati Case No. 93/GST/2025-26 under Section 132 read with Section 69 of CGST Act. The accused petitioner, Bahadur Islam, was arrested on 14.11.2025.
3. The prosecution case is that one Satish Prajapat, Inspector Central, GST, Guwahati, lodged a complaint dated 14.11.2025 before the learned CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, stating inter-alia that in a major detection of GST fraud involving Sameer Malik, Bahadur Islam and others, the present petitioner is indulging in obtaining GST registration of non-existing firms and acting as key persons for issuance of fake invoices to pass on fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) without any corresponding supply of goods and services and that the same was being done for monetary remuneration through non-existent GST registration.
4. It is alleged that as per the analysis done by the department, the fraudulent transactions of the aforesaid nature were said to be more than Rs. 8,00,000,00/-(Eight Crores) for the period from June, 2025 to October, 2025.
5. The prosecution case is that the alleged offences for which the petitioner and the other co-accused have been prosecuted, fall within the ambit of Section 132 sub-(1) and in terms of Section 132 (5), these offences are cognizable and non-bailable. It is also contended by the Investigating Agency that after taking due permission from the authority of the Commissioner of the Department as required under Section 69 of the Act, the accused petitioners have been arrested.
6. Mr. B.D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel submits that without following any procedural stipulations on the said day, the officials of the department forced themselves inside the house of the petitioner and took him to an undisclosed place without informing the members of the family and subsequently, they located him in the office of the Department at Machkhowa, Guwahati. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that, he is mainly a small businessman having a shop, where he helps various customers to make entries regarding registration of business entities etc.
7. It is contended that it is not possible or practicable on his part to check as to whether the entries made by his customers are correct or fraudulent. It is also contended that he cannot be held liable for any fraudulent activities, if any committed by his customers, as he is just rendering customer service by way of helping to make the business entries.
8. The case diary, as called for, has been received.
9. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel strongly opposes the grant of bail and submits that investigation has revealed the involvement of a large racket by way of a gang involved in these fraudulent and criminal activities of making GST entries without corresponding supply of goods and fraudulently securing input tax credits. It is contended that such fraudulent activities are on an organized scale with offenders spread across a wider geographical space in the country and causing illegal gain for themselves and serious illegal loss to the department in the country.
10. The case diary has been placed before me. It is well settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhika Agarwal v. UOI GSTL 225/(2025) 6 SCC 545 that the safeguards regarding arrest would be applicable to any such arrest made by officials of the GST department as well. The relevant paragraph 64 may be reproduced herein below:-
“Para-64:- For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any inconsistency between Section 19(1) of the PML Act and Section 104(1) of the Customs Act. We are of the opinion that principles and ratio developed in the case of Arvind Kejriwal (supra), and the principles specifically discussed and delineated in paragraphs 30 to 45 of this judgment, are equally applicable to the power of arrest under Section 104 of the Customs Act. The respondent authorities are, therefore, directed to comply with the mandate of this judgment and that of Arvind Kejriwal (supra)”.
11. I have perused the notices regarding grounds of arrest furnished to the petitioner under section 47 BNSS and also to family/relatives under section 48 BNSS.
12. I have perused the grounds stated by the learned Principal Commissioner of the Department in his Authorization dated 14.11.2025 referring to the detection by the department of fraudulent invoicing causing loss in the range of Rs. 8.59 crores.
13. Upon considering the matter, vide the same order dated 14.11.2025, the authorization has been given as required under Section 69 of the Act. I have carefully perused the materials collected by the investigation, including the statements of the present petitioner and other accused and witnesses.
14. From the investigation materials prima facie, it appears that the petitioner was not an innocent proprietor of a Customer Service Point mainly helping the customers representing various business entities to make entries and register their firms and make other such related business transactions. The investigation materials, if accepted at their face value, will indicate that the present petitioner though running a business in the nature of a Customer Service Point – was aware of the fraudulent activities and he was a participant in the network of such fraudulent activities for which he received his due share of illegal remuneration.
15. As per the investigation materials, the petitioner stated that he had forgotten about his bank accounts and he has been evasive about many of the pertinent queries relating to fraudulent transactions and transactions with regard to non-existent companies and firms. It is also stated by the investigation that he has also admitted to receiving illegal remuneration and helping the co-accused and another person make such fraudulent registration of firms and companies with a view to illegally siphon off input tax credit.
16. The investigation has revealed that the co-accused Sameer Malik, originally hails from another state and other persons connected to him in these activities are also from other states as well. The Investigating Authority has referred to the network as a gang which was working actively in an organized manner to defraud the department of revenue through false entities and without corresponding real-time supply of goods and services. The investigation though has progressed, but, it appears to be still in an active stage. As already stated above, the investigating team on behalf of the Revenue is stated to be engaged in investigating and ascertaining the full dimensions of the alleged illegal and fraudulent activities.
17. In the absence of any specific provision, perhaps, the prescribed statutory period of BNSS would be applicable herein as well. The offences for which, the petitioner has been prosecuted along with others are per se punishable by 5(five) years.
18. Even though the petitioner has been in detention since 14.11.2025, but -considering the nature of the alleged offences, the materials revealed by the investigation and the continuance of investigation into various dimensions of the alleged offences – I am of the considered view that granting of bail at this stage may not be in the best interest of effective and complete investigation, as has been also rightly contended by the prosecution.
19. Accordingly, in the given facts and circumstances and in the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion – the instant bail petition stands rejected at this stage.
20. Send back the case diary.