Chandrasekhar Chandrakar vs Directorate General Of Goods And ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1824 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Chandrasekhar Chandrakar vs Directorate General Of Goods And ... on 20 April, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

Digitally
signed by
AMIT
PATEL
                                                      1




                                                                    2026:CGHC:17871
                                                                                NAFR

                             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                        MCRCA No. 353 of 2026


             Rohan Tanna S/o Shri Vipin Tanna Aged About 31 Years R/o Vallabh Colony,
             Ward No. 50 Shaheed Pankaj Vikram Ward, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                           --- Applicant


                                                    versus
             Union Of India Through Senior Intelligence Officer, Director General Of
             Goods And Services Tax Intelligence, Raipur Zonal Unit, 4th Floor, Rio
             Complex, Near Fruit Market, Lalpur, Dhamtari Road, District- Raipur,
             Chhattisgarh.
                                                                        --- Respondent

Chandrasekhar Chandrakar, S/o Krishn Kumar Chandrakar, Aged About 36 Years R/o MIG 2/122 Hb Colony Kumhari Ward No. 14 Kumhari Durg (C.G.) 490042

---Applicant Versus Directorate General Of Goods And Service Tax Intelligence (DGGI) Raipur Zonal Unit, 4th Floor, Rio Complex Near, Fruit Lalpur, Dhamtari Road, Raipur 492001 ... Respondent (Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

For Applicants : Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, Advocate in

MCRCA No. 353 of 2026 and Mr. Palash Soni

along with Mr. Vikalp Sharma, Advocates.

For Respondent                : Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate.

                 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
                             Order on Board
 20.04.2026

1. These are the first bail applications filed under Section 482 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant

of anticipatory bail to the applicants in connection with Crime No.

AD220126006503S registered at Directorate General of Goods and

Service Tax Intelligence Raipur Zonal Unit for offence under Sections

35 read with Sections 132 (1) (b), 132 (1) (c) and 132 (1) (f) of the

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in MCRCA No. 353 of 2026

and Section 132 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in

MCRCA No. 368 of 2026.

2. Case of the prosecution, in MCRCA No. 353 of 2026 is that M/s

Shrishti Construction, a proprietor firm engaged in trading of goods,

has wrongly availed Input Tax Credit (for short, ITC) without receiving

actual goods and thereafter passed on the same to several down

chain units without supplying any actual goods. While initiating the

investigation, no firm by the name of M/s Shrishti Construction,

Devpuri, Raipur was operating or working at the principal place of

business declared by the inspection or no business activities were

found. When contacted on the mobile number provided in the GST

registration, Premdas Pannika identified himself as the proprietor of

M/s Shristi Construction. In his statement under Section 70 of the

CGST Act, he stated that he had met with Rohan Tanna (applicant in

MCRCA No. 353/2026) in connection with his business. He promised

to assist him in his business. He provided him with the firm's GST ID

and password for further business operations, promising him a 0.5%

commission. All business activities within his firm, including purchases

and sales, filing GST returns, were handled by Rohan Tanna, and he

possessed all the documents. He is completely unaware of any

fraudulent activities within his firm, particularly those related to the

fraudulent ITC passing of Rs.10.22 crore. During the investigation,

Chandan Gupta's involvement in the fake billing issue of the said firm

was also revealed. On taking Chandan Gupta's statement, he had

provided fake bills issued by M/s Shrishti Construction to various

persons and he had obtained them from a person named

Chandrashekhar Chandrakar (the applicant in MCRCA No. 368/2026)

and the fake bills received from Chandrashekhar Chandrakar were

issued by Rohan Tanna. During the investigation, on 28.07.2025, when

Chandrashekhar Chandrakar's statement was recorded, he confirmed

the statement given by Chandan Gupta and said that he had obtained

the fake bills of M/s Shrishti Construction from Rohan Tanna and had

provided them to Chandan Gupta. Chandrashekhar Chandrakar

presented WhatsApp chats between him and Rohan Tanna. During the

investigation, Premdas Panika's statement was recorded again on

11.08.2025. He stated that he became suspicious of a large

transaction and refused to work with Rohan Tanna. Rohan Tanna

threatened him severely. Karan Kumar Raiththa stated in his statement

that on Rohan Tanna's instructions, he filed GST returns for M/s Shristi

Construction. He was given the firm's e-way bill ID and password and

issued e-way bills for the firm as directed. Upon examining the

statement of Account No. 20100025960689 maintained in the name of

the said entity with Bandhan Bank, Raipur, it was found that an amount

of Rs.17.96 crore had been credited and an equal amount had been

debited. This makes it clear that Rohan Tanna is one of the key

individuals in this entire fraudulent ITC case.

3. Mr. Harshwardhan Parghaniya, learned counsel for the applicant in

MCRCA No. 353 of 2026 submits that the applicant is neither the

proprietor nor a partner of M/s Shristi Construction and has no

ownership, managerial or controlling interest in the said firm. His

implication is sought primarily on the basis of statements of co-

accused/third parties, without any independent documentary evidence

directly connecting him with the alleged issuance of invoices,

availment or passing of ITC. The allegations are founded upon GST

portal data, E-Way Bill records, bank statements and statements

recorded by the department, all of which are already in the custody of

the prosecution. No recovery is to be effected from the physical

custody of the applicant, rendering custodial interrogation wholly

unnecessary. Even where offences under Section 132 of the CGST Act

are alleged, arrest is not mandatory and must satisfy the test of

necessity. In the present case, no exceptional circumstances exist

warranting the arrest of the Applicant. The offences alleged under

Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(f) of the CGST Act are

statutorily compoundable under Section 138 of the Act, reflecting the

legislative intent that such matters are primarily fiscal and revenue-

oriented, and not punitive in nature. No incriminating material

whatsoever has been seized from the possession, custody, or

premises of the applicant during the course of investigation. The

absence of any recovery linking the applicant to the alleged offence

clearly demonstrates that his custodial interrogation is unwarranted

and that continued detention would serve no useful purpose. The

offences alleged against the Applicant under Section 35 read with

Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(f) of the CGST Act, 2017 are

not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Even in cases

involving higher tax amounts, the maximum punishment prescribed

under Section 132 is limited and determinate, subject to the quantum

allegedly involved. The limited term of imprisonment prescribed under

the statute, coupled with the fact that the alleged offences are

economic and regulatory in nature, clearly militates against the

necessity of custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration of the

applicant at the stage of investigation. The limited statutory

punishment prescribed under Section 132 of the CGST Act itself

demonstrates that arrest is not intended to be mechanical or punitive,

but only in exceptional circumstances. The alleged offences under

Section 35 read with Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(f) of the

CGST Act, 2017 do not contemplate punishment exceeding five years,

and are not accompanied by any allegation of commission of serious

offences of a heinous nature. In support of his contentions, he places

reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Narendra

Amrutlal Patel and Another v. Assistant Commissioner of State

Tax and Another, {2022 SCC OnLine Bom 6528}. Furthermore, it is

now a settled position in law that apprehension of influencing the

witness and tampering of evidence is required to be based on tangible

evidence and mere allegation cannot be taken at face value on the

asking of the investigating agency. In fact, the Applicant is presently in

judicial custody and is in no position to influence witnesses, flee from

investigation or tamper with evidence. The applicant is willing to

cooperate and assist the non-applicant in the investigation of the case.

He further submits that the applicant has not made any attempt to

suborn witnesses, tamper with the evidence, or in any manner pollute

or obstruct the judicial process.

4. Mr. Palash Soni, learned counsel for the applicant in MCRCA No.368

of 2026, in addition to what has been submitted by Mr. Parghaniya,

submits that the non-applicant initiated an investigation in respect of a

firm namely M/s Shristi Construction, bearing GSTIN

22BZIPP0049LIZA, which is a proprietorship concern. The said firm is

alleged by the non-applicant to be involved in the purported fraudulent

availment of ITC through alleged bogus/non-existent firms. The

applicant has no relation whatsoever with the said firm. On

13.09.2024, the non-applicant conducted an inspection and visited the

declared principal place of business of M/s Shristi Construction. During

the course of the said proceedings, it was alleged by the non-applicant

that Mr. Chandan Gupta was engaged in providing purported bogus

invoices for the alleged availment of ITC. On 27.02.2025, the non-

applicant recorded the statement of Mr. Chandan Gupta, wherein it

was alleged that the applicant's name was disclosed in connection with

the purported issuance of bogus invoices through applicant- Rohan

Tanna. It is further submitted that the statement of Rohan Tanna was

also recorded by the non-applicant on 10.03.2025. The non-applicant

issued summons dated 11.03.2025 and 13.06.2025 to the applicant.

However, due to bona fide exigencies beyond the control of the

applicant, he could not appear on the said dates. Thereafter, the non-

applicant issued a subsequent summons dated 04.07.2025 directing

the applicant to appear on 28.07.2025, which was duly complied with.

Pursuant thereto, the applicant appeared before the non-applicant on

28.07.2025, and his statement was recorded. The aforesaid sequence

of events unequivocally demonstrates that the applicant has duly

cooperated with the investigation. Subsequent to the recording of the

applicant's statement, no further summons was ever issued by the

non-applicant. In such circumstances, any allegation on the part of the

non-applicant asserting that the applicant has not cooperated with the

investigation is ex facie false, misleading, and contrary to the record.

On 22.01.2026, the non-applicant arrested Chandan Gupta. On the

very same day, immediately following the said arrest, the officials of

the non-applicant visited the residence of the applicant and conducted

an extensive search at the office premises of the applicant. However,

the said search did not result in the recovery of any adverse material,

the applicant was thereafter repeatedly summoned on multiple

occasions and subjected to prolonged interrogation. During the course

of such proceedings, the applicant was persistently pressurised and

coerced to deposit substantial amounts under the explicit threat of

arrest. Prior to any adjudication or determination of liability under the

CGST Act, the non-applicant cannot, by mere inference, arrive at a

conclusive finding that ITC worth more than Rs. 28.20 Crore has been

fraudulently or bogusly availed. More so, the investigation is still at a

nascent stage, and the applicant himself has not yet been investigated

in a complete or fair manner. Any such conclusion drawn at this stage

is premature, legally unsustainable, and reflective of a pre-decided

approach. Notwithstanding this, the applicant was subjected to undue

pressure, coercion, and mental harassment during the proceedings

and was repeatedly compelled to make substantial monetary deposits

under explicit threats of arrest, thereby converting what ought to have

been a lawful search into a coercive exercise. Such conduct further

reinforces the applicant's well-founded and imminent apprehension of

custodial action. On 05.02.2026, the applicant addressed a

communication to the non-applicant demonstrating his bona fides and

unequivocally expressing his willingness to cooperate with the ongoing

investigation. In the said communication, the applicant categorically

stated that there exists no justification for treating him as the main

accused, that he is innocent, and that he has not received any monies

whatsoever in connection with the alleged transactions. The mere fact

that the proceedings are being conducted by the GST Intelligence and

that an FIR under the general criminal law has not yet been registered

does not, in any manner, oust the remedy of anticipatory bail, as long

as the threat of arrest is imminent and real. Reliance in this regard is

placed upon Sushila Aggarwal vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.,

(2020) 5 SCC 1. The offences alleged by the non-applicant fall under

Section 132 of the CGST Act, which, at its highest, prescribes a

maximum punishment of five years or fine, or both. Thus, even taking

the allegations at face value and without admitting them, the offences

cannot be categorized as heinous or grave in the sense that custodial

detention becomes indispensable. Section 132 is part of a fiscal

statute, revenue object being protection and recovery, not punitive

incarceration. The provision itself clearly places the offences in a

category below those involving life imprisonment or offences against

the person and society. Therefore. the allegations, even if assumed for

argument's sake, do not attract the kind of seriousness that justifies

denial of anticipatory bail. The primary objective of the CGST Act is

regulatory, facilitative, and revenue-oriented and not punitive in nature.

The scheme of the Act is designed to ensure voluntary compliance,

self-assessment, reconciliation of returns, and adjudication of tax

liability, with recovery mechanisms being civil and fiscal in character

and does not require pre-trial incarceration. Further reliance in this

regard is placed upon the judgments of this High Court in Mohd.

Farhan vs. State of Chhattisgarh, MCRCA No. 1689/2025, and

judgment passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Tarun Jain vs. DGGI,

in bail application No. 3771/2021. The allegations levelled by the non-

applicant pertain to alleged availment of ITC through bogus firms and

providing bogus bills to co-accused, which, even if assumed to be true

for the sake of argument, fall squarely within the ambit of the CGST

Act where the maximum punishment prescribed does not exceed five

years. No incriminating material or cash was recovered during the

extensive search of the applicant's office, and the entire investigation

rests upon documentary evidence already within the reach of the

authorities.

5. It is further submitted that in the present case, the allegations against

the applicant- Chandrashekhar Chandrakar pertain to an alleged

availment of ITC of more than 5 crores as stated by the non-applicant.

When viewed in light of the applicant's cooperation, absence of

criminal antecedents, and the regulatory character of the CGST Act,

the case of the applicant stands on an even stronger footing.

Accordingly, the applicant deserves the protection of anticipatory bail.

Further reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Arvind

Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement {2026 INSC 12}, Arvind

Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement {(2025) 2 SCC 248} and a

decision rendered in Shravan A. Mehra v. Superintendent of

Central Tax, Anti Evasion {MANU/KA/0875/2019}.

6. Accordingly, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants pray that

the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Maneesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing

for the non-applicant would oppose the bail applications and submit

that M/s Shristi Construction, Deopuri, Raipur (GSTIN:

22BZIPP0049LIZA) is a proprietorship firm and engaged in trading of

goods. On the basis of intelligence gathered through data analysis and

further develop by the departmental officers, it was found that M/s

Shristi Construction, Raipur have fraudulently availed ITC without

actual receipt of goods and subsequently passed on such ITC to many

down chain entities without any actual supply of goods. Verification of

e-way bill on the GST portal confirmed that no inward vehicle

movement was recorded on the e-way bill portal, clearly indicated the

issuance of fake invoices without actual receipt of goods and

thereafter passing on of same fraudulent ITC to many taxpayers,

thereby causing substantial loss to Government exchequer. Acting

upon the above intelligence, an investigation against the said firm was

initiated under Section 67(1) of CGST Act, 2017 and an inspection was

conducted on 13.09.2024 at the registered premises at: 1, Main Road,

opposite Raj Electricals, Deopuri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492001. During

the inspection no such firm in the name and style of M/s Shristi

Construction, Raipur was found to be conducting any business from

the said registered premises i.e. the firm was found to be non-

functional/non-existent at the registered premises. After that the

visiting officials contacted the registered mobile number of the firm

mentioned in the GST registration, a person namely Premdas Panika

responded the call who introduced himself as the proprietor of the firm

M/s Shristi Construction. On request of officers Premdas Panika

appeared before the officer and joined the proceedings. A statement

of Premdas Panika was recorded under Section 70 of CGST Act, 2017

on 13.09.2024, wherein he stated that he is the proprietor of the firm

M/s. Shristi Construction, Raipur. He used to supply building materials

such as Cement, sand etc. on order since 2011 on temporary basis.

He opened a firm M/s Shristi Construction, Raipur and started his

business on permanent basis since January, 2022 from a rented

premises at 1, Main Road, in front of Raj Electrical, Deopuri, Raipur,

Chhattisgarh, 492001. The said premises was got vacated by the shop

owner from 3 month ago. M/s Shristi Construction is registered with

the department since September, 2022 and engaged in trading of

building material viz. Cement, sand etc. He had met the applicant-

Rohan Tanna once in relation to business activities of his firm as

business condition of his firm was not good. Rohan Tanna had

promised him to look after the business activities of his firm and help

him in his business by giving some financial help. He had given the ID

and Password of his firm M/s Shristi Construction, Raipur to Rohan

Tanna to carry out all the business activities. Rohan Tanna had

promised him to give him 0.5% as commission of the amount received

in the firm's Bank Account on account of all business activities of the

firm. All the GST returns were filed by Rohan Tanna. He has received

Rs.1-1.5 lakh (approx.) as commission from Rohan Tanna till now. The

amount received in Bank Account of the firm (Kotak Mahindra Bank)

on account of business activities of the firm were transferred by him

through IMPS and Net Banking into different Bank Accounts on the

instruction of Rohan Tanna. He is totally unaware that the GST ITC

amounting to Rs.10,22,07,466/ has been fraudulently passed on by

M/s Shristi Construction. This fact was known to him only when the

Department brought into his notice. During the course of investigation,

statements of various persons were recorded under Section 70 of

CGST Act, 2017 wherein the name of Chandan Gupta came forward

prominently as the circulator of fake/bogus invoices of M/s. Shristi

Construction, Raipur (GSTIN: 22BZIPP0049LIZA) and M/s Keshab

Traders, Raipur (GSTIN: 22AHZPA8057H1Z3). Accordingly, a summon

dated 17.01.2025 was issued to Chandan Gupta to appear on

23.01.2025. However, Chandan Gupta failed to appear on the

scheduled date. Hence, another summon dated 31.01.2025 was

issued to Chandan Gupta to appear on 05.02.2025. Chandan Gupta in

compliance of summons dated 31.01.2025 appeared on date

27.02.2025 and his statement was recorded under Section 70 of

CGST Act, 2017 on 27.02.2025, wherein Chandan Gupta categorically

admitted that he had provided fake/bogus invoices of M/s. Shristi

Construction, Raipur to many clients who further provided the said

fake invoices to the final availers of fake/ineligible ITC. Chandan Gupta

stated that he used to contact one Chandrashekar Chandrakar to

procure the fake invoice of M/s. Shristi Construction, Raipur for further

supply to his clients. As the name of Rohan Tanna came forward as

Central figure in this scheme of ITC fraud case, a summon was issued

to him, however, he failed to honour the summon dated 05.12.2025.

8. Mr. Sharma further submits that during the course of further

investigation several summons were issued to Rohan Tanna. However,

Rohan Tanna appeared only once against summon dated 03.10.2025.

A statement of Rohan Tanna was recorded under Section 70 of CGST

Act, 2017 on 10.03.2025. On being confronted the statement on

13.09.2024 of Premdas Panika, Proprietor of M/s. Shristi Construction,

Raipur, he denied all the allegation made by Premdas Panika in his

statement However, Rohan Tanna admitted the fact of obtaining GST

ID & Password of M/s Shristi Construction, Raipur from Premdas

Panika and he further stated that he gave this ID and Password to

Chandrashekar Chandrakar. On scrutiny of Bank statements obtained

during the course of investigation revealed that Rohan Tanna had

received amounts from M/s. Shristi Construction and Chandan Gupta

in his Bank accounts. On being confronted in this regard, Rohan Tanna

gave evasive and misleading replies and stated that he is not able to

recall the reasons for receiving amounts in his bank accounts from

M/s. Shristi Construction as of now and he assured to provide all the

relevant documents related to these bank transactions within 2-3 days

But Rohan Tanna failed to provide any documents to the department

during the course of investigation till date. Further, investigation

revealed that Rohan Tanna had given money to Premdas Panika,

proprietor M/s. Shristi Construction. On being asked in this regard,

Rohan Tanna again gave evasive and misleading replies and stated

that he is not able to recall the reason for giving money to Premdas

Panika and promised to provide the relevant documents in this regard

within 2-3 days. However, Rohan Tanna did not provide any

evidence/documents in this regard also. In fact, Rohan Tanna neither

communicated any evidences/ documents as he had promised to

provide related to the aforesaid bank transactions neither he ever

appeared before the department after his statement dated 10.03.2025

and he dishonoured all the summon issued by the department. During

the course of investigation, a statement of Chandrashekar Chandrakar

was recorded under Section 70 of CGST Act, 2017 on 28.07. 2025. On

being confronted the statement of Chandan Gupta dated 27.02.2025

wherein he had stated that he used to obtained fake invoice of M/s.

Shristi Construction from Chandrasekhar Chandrakar, he categorically

admitted that he had supplied fake/bogus invoices of M/s. Shristi

Construction to Chandan Gupta. Chandrashekar Chandrakar in his

statement further stated that Chandan Gupta used to contact him for

fake invoices of M/s. Shristi Construction, Raipur and thereafter he

used to contact Rohan Tanna to procure the same. He further stated

that Shri. Rohan Tanna generated the fake invoices of M/s. Shristi

Construction, Raipur and provided to him and he further provided the

same to Chandan Gupta. Chandrashekar Chandrakar during his

statement submitted the whatsapp chats along with its PDF

exchanged between him and Rohan Tanna and Chandan Gupta.

Perusal of the aforesaid Whatsapp chats clearly show that

Chandrashekhar Chandrakar, Rohan Tanna and Chandan Gupta have

exchanged regarding issuance of invoices of M/s Shristi Construction.

E-invoicing ID and Password of M/s Shristi Construction, E-way bill ID

and Password of M/s Shristi Construction, filing of GST returns of M/s

Shristi Construction Thus, it unequivocally indicates that

Chandrashekhar Chandrakar were hand in glove with Rohan Tanna

and Chandan Gupta in generation and circulation of fake invoices of

M/s Shristi Construction. Another statement of Premdas Panika was

recorded on 11.08.2025 wherein he reaffirmed his earlier statement

dated 13.09.2024. He further stated that upon noticing some high-

value transactions in the firm's bank account, he got suspicious that

some wrongful activities are being done, accordingly, he contacted

Rohan Tanna and informed him that he does not wish to continue his

business with him. But Rohan Tanna got infuriated and badly

threatened and intimidated him and told him to keep quite. He

reiterated that Rohan Tanna had misused the GST ID and password of

the firm and committed fraud by issuing fake invoices. During the

further course of investigation, a statement Karan Kumar Raiththa,

Accountant was recorded under Section 70 CGST Act, 2017 on

21.08.2025 wherein he stated that he had earlier worked as

accountant of Rohan Tanna for his firm M/s. J.R. Traders. Rohan

Tanna had provided him the GST ID and password of M/s Shristi

Construction. He had filed GST returns of M/s Shristi Construction. At

the time of filing of GST returns he used to receive OTP from Premdas

Panika as Rohan Tanna had instructed him to get the OTP from

Premdas Panika. Rohan Tanna and Chandrashekhar Chandrakar also

provided him E-way bill credentials of M/s Shristi Construction for

generation of e-way bills and he also generated E-way bill of M/s

Shristi Construction as instructions received from Rohan Tanna and

Chandrashekhar Chandrakar. Further investigation revealed another

bank account of the firm in Bandhan Bank, Raipur (Account No.

20100025960689) in the name of Hitesh Dhruv, showing him as

proprietor of M/s Shristi Construction in KYC records. The Account

statement analysis revealed the total credits and debits of

Rs.17,96,16,038.38/- in the bank account no. 20100025960689.

Accordingly, a statement of Hitesh Dhruv was recorded under Section

70 CGST Act, 2017 on 11.08.2025 wherein he stated that he is neither

proprietor of the firm M/s Shristi Construction nor aware of any such

bank account in his name. He further stated that his credentials such

as Aadhar Card and PAN card were taken by Chandan Gupta on the

pretext of providing him a job and might have been misused to open

the said Bank account No. 20100025960689. Chandan Gupta in his

statement dated 21/22.01.2026, admitted the fact of opening the said

bank account with assistance of Rohan Tanna misusing the credentials

of Hitesh Kumar Dhruv. Investigation conducted so far in the matter as

narrated foregoing paras, clearly establishes that Rohan Tanna and

Chandrashekhar Chnadrakar are the key persons and mastermind

who had hand in glove with Chandan Gupta in generation and

circulation of fake invoices of M/s Shristi Construction and causing

huge loss to the Government exchequer. WhatsApp chats submitted

by them further corroborate the issuance of fake invoices by

Chandrasekhar Chandrakar and Rohan Tanna and Rohan Tanna and

Chandan Gupta wherein; fraudulent ITC of Rs.17,18,23,354/- was

availed without actual receipt of goods and fake ITC of Rs.

10,62,66,870/- was passed on without actual supply of goods across

multiple states including Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Odisha, and

Telangana. During the course of investigation one co-accused

Chandan Gupta was arrested on 22.01.2026 under GST provisions

and produced before the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur and

he was remanded in judicial custody Chandan Gupta is still in judicial

custody.

9. Mr. Sharma further submits that the contention of the applicants that

the offence is compoundable and economic in nature, the applicants

have been critically engaged in generation and circulation of invoices

without actual supply of goods and the offence of the applicant is

covered under section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 Provisions

related to compounding of offences are laid down under section 138 of

the CGST Act. 2017 and as per clause (c) of the proviso to section

138(1), provisions of section 138 shall not apply in cases involving

offences under section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. The

exclusion of offences under section 132(1)(b) from the provisions of

compounding, has been made effective from 1st of October 2023 by

amending the Act. The legislature, after realizing the gravity of offence

relating to issuance of fake invoices and its effect on the health of the

economy, has specially excluded this offence from the provisions

relating to compounding. Offence of the applicants are not

compoundable and same may not be considered as ground for

granting bail.

10. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused

the case diary.

11. The allegation against the applicants herein are that they fraudulently

availed ITC of Rs. 17,18,23,354/- without actual receipt of goods and

fake ITC of Rs. 10,62,66,870/- was passed on without actual supply of

goods across multiple States including Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra,

Odisha and Telangana. The material collected during investigation

prima facie indicates that the firm M/s Shristi Construction was used

as a vehicle for issuing fake invoices, the applicant- Rohan Tanna had

control over GST operations and financial transactions; the applicant

Chandrashekhar Chandrakar facilitated circulation of fake invoices.

The allegations are supported not only by statements but also by

documentary and electronic evidence. The contention that the case

rests solely on statements of co-accused cannot be accepted at this

stage, in view of the corroborative material available on record. It is

well settled that economic offences constitute a class apart and are

required to be viewed with a different approach in matters of bail.

Economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies and huge loss

to public funds warrant a strict approach. It is equally important that

the gravity of economic offences and their impact on the financial

system must be duly considered while adjudicating bail petitions.

Further, the offence under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act has

been made non-compoundable, indicating legislative intent to treat

such offences with seriousness. The plea that the evidence is

documentary in nature does not, by itself, obviate the necessity of

custodial interrogation, particularly where the investigation is ongoing

and involves multiple transactions and entities. The magnitude of the

alleged fraud is to the tune of Rs.27 Crores approximately. The

present is in the nature of an organized crime.

12. The applicants prima facie appear to be the key conspirators in a

large-scale GST fraud. The role of applicant Rohan Tanna is central in

operating the firm and managing transactions, the applicant

Chandrashekhar Chandrakar acted as an intermediary in circulating

fake invoices, the evidences include statements under Section 70,

bank records, GST portal data, and electronic communications. The

Table-A at paragraph 8 of the return filed by the respondent-

Department, which is the relevant whatsapp chats between the

applicants Rohan Tanna, Chandrashekhar Chandrakar and Chandan

Gupta speaks volumes and is a pointer to the fact that they are all

hand in gloves in commission of the offence in question. Even the

conduct of the applicant- Rohan Tanna shows that he had not

adequately cooperated with the non-applicant/ Department as such,

this Court is of the opinion that the applicants are not entitled to the

relief of anticipatory bail.

13.Accordingly, these first bail applications of Applicant- Rohan Tanna

involved in Crime No. AD220126006503S registered at Directorate

General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence Raipur Zonal Unit for

offence under Sections 35 read with Sections 132 (1) (b), 132 (1) (c)

and 132 (1) (f) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and

Applicant- Chandrasekhar Chandrakar involved in Crime No.

AD220126006503S for offence under Section 132 of Central Goods

and Services Tax Act, 2017 are hereby rejected at this stage.

                \             -                                    Sd/-

                                                             (Ramesh Sinha)
                                                              Chief Justice
AMIT PATEL