[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Harish Wadhwani vs Directorate General Of Gst ... on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:14379
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
GOURI MCRCA No. 265 of 2026
MUDALIAR
Harish Wadhwani, Aged About 44 Years, S/o SH. Roopchand Wadhwani R/o
Digitally signed by
GOURI MUDALIAR Villa No. 196, Sapphire Green, Vidhan Sabha Road, Raipur, 492001.
Date: 2026.03.27
12:49:37 +0530 ... Applicant
versus
1 - Directorate General Of GST Intelligence ( DGGI) Raipur, Zonal Unit, 4th
Floor, RIO Complex, Near Fruit, Lalpur, Dhamtari Road, Raipur-492001
2 - Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, Central GST Building,
Dhamtari Road, Tikrapara, Raipur 492001
... Respondents
For Applicant : Shri Palash Soni, Advocate with Shri Vikalp
Sharma and Shri Prashant Dansena, Advocates.
For Respondents : Shri Maneesh Sharma, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order On Board
25/03/2026
1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), for grant
of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime
No./Summons (1) IV(6)DGGI/Misc. Enq./RZU/41/2024-25/Gr VIII dated
18.01.2025, (2) GEXCOM/AE/MISC/130/2025-AE-O/o Pr COMMR
RAIPUR, dated 25.04.2025 and 15.05.2025, (3)
DGGI/INV/GST/2337/2025-GrVIII-O/oADG-DGGI-ZU dated 30.09.2025
registered at Police Station Directorate General Of Goods And
Service Tax Intelligence Raipur Zonal Unit, 4th Floor, RIO
Complex, Near Fruit, Lalpur, Dhamtari Road, Raipur for alleged
commission of offence punishable under Sections 69 & 132 of
CGST/CGGST Act, 2017.
2. Facts of the case are that the applicant, Sh. Harish Wadhwani, is a
permanent resident of Raipur and the authorized signatory of M/s Om
Kiran Ispat Udyog. On 18.01.2025, his office was searched, but no
incriminating material was found. Despite this, he was repeatedly
summoned, interrogated, and coerced to deposit Rs.88.78 lakh under
threat of arrest. Allegations of fraudulent Input Tax Credit exceeding Rs.
5 crores were made prematurely, before any adjudication or completion
of investigation. The investigating agency also arrested business
associates in connection with routine transactions, showing a coercive
pattern. During a prolonged search on 22-23.01.2026, the Applicant
suffered health issues due to mental and physical stress. The Applicant
has a genuine and imminent apprehension of arrest, hence the present
anticipatory bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the apprehension of
arrest of the applicant is real, concrete, and based on objective
circumstances. He would submit that despite full cooperation with
multiple summons, the investigation has assumed a coercive character,
as shown by repeated short-interval summons, sustained interrogation,
threats of arrest, coercive demands for deposits, issuance of adverse
communications without adjudication, and arrest of unrelated business
associates. He would submit that the applicant's apprehension
intensified after the communication dated 09.12.2025 alleging
fraudulent Input Tax Credit and the subsequent arrest of Mr. Aman
Kumar Agrawal and Mr. Vikram Madhani, both connected through
ordinary business dealings. He would submit that these actions reflect
a clear pattern of coercion, placing the applicant's liberty under
imminent threat. He would submit that further, the reply filed by the
non-applicant in Bail Application No.62/2026 has drawn conclusive
findings of guilt against the applicant even prior to adjudication. He
would submit that the apprehension became acute during the
prolonged search on 22-23.01.2026, where arrest proceedings were
initiated despite no incriminating material being found, and the
applicant's health deteriorated. He would submit that the applicant is
ready to abide by all the directions and conditions which may be
imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail and the applicant
is permanent resident of Villa no.196, Sapphire Green, Vidhan Sabha
Road, Raipur, 492001, there is no likelihood of his absconding,
therefore, he submits that the present applicant is entitled for grant of
anticipatory bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents oppose the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. He would submit that the
anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is not maintainable.
He would further submit that the applicant has mixed facts from
multiple proceedings and misrepresented the search and investigation.
During the search at the principal place of business, the applicant was
physically and mentally fit, present with his brother and staff, and no
family members or minor daughters were present. The investigation
was conducted in a cordial manner, and no coercion, harassment, or
medical emergency occurred. He would submit that the applicant
voluntarily left the proceedings without informing the officers. He would
submit that the apprehension of arrest is unfounded. He would further
submit that arrest of Aman Kumar Agrawal and Vikram Madhani are
unrelated to the applicant's matter, and the case against the applicant
involves a total ITC of Rs. 1.16 crore, below the Rs.5 crore threshold,
making it a bailable and non-cognizable offence. He would submit that
summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act are part of routine
investigation, and no arrest under Section 69 was initiated, which
requires prior sanction. Further, the matter regarding ITC from Aman
Kumar Agrawal's firm is already being investigated by the Chhattisgarh
State GST, and bail has already been granted in that case. He would
submit that parallel proceedings by two agencies are impermissible
under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. Therefore, there is no imminent
threat of arrest, and the applicant's bail application was rightly rejected
by the Additional Sessions Judge.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials
available on record.
6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submission of
learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record, the
record shows that matter pertains to a total GST liability of
Rs.1,16,22,215/-, out of this, an amount of Rs.74,89,846/- remains
recoverable from the applicant's firm, M/s Jai Bhole Enterprises,
Raipur, thus, the proceedings initiated by DGGI against the applicant
relate to a liability of less than Rs.5 crore and under Section 132 of the
GST Act, offences involving an amount less than Rs.5 crore are non-
cognizable and bailable in nature. Therefore, the anticipatory bail
application under Section 482 BNSS filed by the applicant based on
apprehension of arrest for a non-cognizable offence, is devoid of merit.
7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Harish
Wadhwani, involved in Crime No./Summons (1) IV(6)DGGI/Misc.
Enq./RZU/41/2024-25/Gr VIII dated 18.01.2025, (2)
GEXCOM/AE/MISC/130/2025-AE-O/o Pr COMMR RAIPUR,
dated 25.04.2025 and 15.05.2025 (3) DGGI/INV/GST/2337/2025-
GrVIII-O/oADG-DGGI-ZU dated 30.09.2025 registered at Police
Station Directorate General Of Goods And Service Tax
Intelligence Raipur Zonal Unit, 4th Floor, RIO Complex, Near
Fruit, Lalpur, Dhamtari Road, Raipur for alleged commission of
offence punishable under Sections 69 & 132 of CGST/CGGST Act
2017 is rejected. Sd/-Sd S
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
gouri
