High Court of Allahabad
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS NO. 30974 OF 2026
Where GST demand and penalty proceedings for alleged fake ITC based on MIS Portal and e-way bill analysis were initiated and prosecution regime was available under GST law, parallel prosecution and cognizance under BNS for same facts could not continue, so charge sheet and cognizance order in BNS proceedings were quashed in view of primacy of special statute
Section 132, read with section 134, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 4, read with section 5,of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 61(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 345(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.
Members
The background, the issue before the court and the reasoning behind the decision are free for members — along with the professional discussion on this ruling.
Free to join. No card required.
Already a member? Sign in
Patna High Court
Where petitioner was arrested for allegedly orchestrating issuance and availment of fraudulent ITC through fake tax invoices, considering that charge sheet had been filed and investigation stood completed, petitioner was enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond and two sureties of like amount to satisfaction of ACJM
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where petitioners managing payout company and linked firm were accused in GST evasion network misreporting online money-gaming receipts through sham entities and dummy directors, with investigation completed, four months' custody, documentary evidence, and no risk of influence or tampering, further detention would have served no useful purpose and regular bail was to be granted subject to conditions
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where petitioner was accused of availing wrongful ITC using fake invoices without goods movement, remained in custody for about four months, had clean antecedents, case material was documentary, there was no risk of flight or tampering with evidence, and trial was not nearing completion, continued detention was unwarranted and petitioner was entitled to bail subject to conditions