[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naveen Tayal vs Central Goods And Service Tax on 7 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-69856-2025 (O&M) -1-
111
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.69856 of 2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 07.03.2026
Naveen Tayal
..... Petitioner
Versus
CGST, Faridabad
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
*****
Present: Mr. Jitin Singhal, Advocate and
Mr. Hrithik Chaudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Navneet Sharma, Advocate and
Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent-CGST.
Mr. Ajay Kalra, Senior Standing Counsel with
Ms. Isha Juneja, Advocate
for the respondent-CBIC.
*****
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular
bail to the petitioner in complaint case bearing COMA No.518 of 2025,
District Faridabad, dated 05.07.2025 under Section 132(1)(b)(c)(f) and (I)
of Central Goods and Service Tax, Act, 2017.
2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that complaint in the
present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, i.e.
Superintendent, CGST Commissionerate, GST Bhawan, Block C & D,
New CGO Complex, NH4, Faridabad. It was alleged that Sanket Mittal
1 of 4
CRM-M-69856-2025 (O&M) -2-
and Naveen Tayal (petitioner) were involved in issuance of fake invoices
so as to avail and pass on ineligible input tax credit without actual supply
of goods and the firms, namely, M/s Balaji Mobile Addition (GSTIN
06CDKPM1247E1ZQ) and M/s Monit Enterprises (GSTIN
06BNYPT2121H1ZO) were used for availing and passing on ineligible
input tax credit. It was alleged that M/s Balaji Mobile Addition was
engaged in the trading of mobile phones (especially I-Phones) and on
perusal of GST returns available on the GST portal, it came to the notice
that M/s Balaji Mobile Addition had availed ITC from various suppliers
including M/s Monit Enterprises, who had passed on ineligible ITC to the
tune of Rs.30.4 Crores during December, 2023 to March, 2024 using fake
invoices without goods. It was alleged that from perusal of GST returns of
M/s Monit Enterprises, it came to the notice that M/s Monit Enterprises
had declared supply of goods involving ITC amounting to Rs.30.4 crores
during December, 2023 to March, 2024, which appeared to be suspicious.
Thus, the request was made to take legal action against the accused and on
the basis of the same, the investigation commenced. Resultantly, the
petitioner was arrested on 06.05.2025. The petitioner approached the Court
of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad praying for the grant of
regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in
the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, dismissed the
bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 14.11.2025. Hence
being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court praying for the grant
of regular bail by way of filing the present petition.
2 of 4
CRM-M-69856-2025 (O&M) -3-
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case.
He, at the outset, prays for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the
basis of parity with that of the co-accused, namely, Sanket Mittal. He has
drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 18.12.2025, passed in
CRM-M-44925-2025, whereby, co-accused, namely, Sanket Mittal has
been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court. He has submitted
that the petitioner is behind bars since 06.05.2025. He has submitted that
the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as he has never been involved in
any other case. He has submitted that on the basis of the parity, the
petitioner deserves to be granted bail as the case of the petitioner is similar
to that of the said co-accused, who has already been granted bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State however has opposed the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted
that complicity of the petitioner has been prima facie surfaced. He,
however, has endorsed the factum of grant of bail to the co-accused of the
petitioner as stated above and has not denied that the petitioner is at par
with the co-accused, namely, Sanket Mittal.
5. Heard.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, it is deciphered that the petitioner is behind bars since 06.05.2025
and since then, he is behind bars and as such, he has suffered an
incarceration of about 10 months. Co-accused of the petitioner, namely,
Sanket Mittal, is already on regular bail and the case of the petitioner as
stated above is at par with him. As submitted before this Court by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not involved in any other case.
3 of 4
CRM-M-69856-2025 (O&M) -4-
7. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after
the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by
both the parties before the trial Court. This Court would refrain itself from
commenting anything on the merits of the case. The trial of the case will
take sufficient long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the
sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned
counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner on the basis of parity.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner
is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, if the
petitioner does not furnish the bail bonds within seven days from today,
then his further custody period after one week will not be counted in this
case.
9. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case. Pending application bearing CRM-5738-
2026 praying for the grant of interim bail stands infructuous.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
07.03.2026 JUDGE
rittu Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
