High Court of Punjab & Haryana2 June 2026

Rohit Kumar Gupta v. State of Punjab

For assessee

CRM-M NO. 19525 OF 2026 (O & M)

The ruling in brief

Where proprietor of GST-registered iron and steel trading concern was arrested for wrongful ITC claims relying on documentary evidence, with judicial custody exceeding three-and-a-half months, further detention was unwarranted as investigation was based on documents, no flight risk or potential for evidence tampering existed and speedy trial rights demanded grant of bail subject to conditions

Provisions considered

Section 132, read with section 69, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 483, read with section 187, of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha 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.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

Allahabad High Court11 Aug 2026

For assessee

Javed Akhtar v. Union of India

Where applicant accused of availing fraudulent input tax credit on invoices of non-existent firms was in custody after investigation completion, no evidence showed likelihood of tampering, intimidation or evasion, assessment was not initiated, maximum punishment was five years, and trial was unlikely soon, bail was justified considering presumption of innocence, speedy trial, and bail as rule

Allahabad High Court11 Aug 2026

For assessee

Kapil Chugh v. State of U.P

Where authorities alleged firm availed and passed on fake ITC through bogus invoices and initiated simultaneous GST demand and BNS prosecution based on same facts, since genesis was GST non-payment and BNSS mandates such offences be investigated under special enactments, prosecution under BNS for same conduct was barred and all parallel criminal proceedings under general law were quashed against applicant

Chhattisgarh High Court7 Aug 2026

For revenue

Santosh Agrawal (Goyal) v. Union of India

Where petitioner, a private businessman, filed PIL seeking directions for investigation and recovery in alleged tax evasion by specific parties based on supplied documents and previous dismissal for want of locus and same was to be dismissed as petitioner failed to disclose any element of genuine public interest; Security amount deposited by petitioner was to be forfeited

CGST S.132

Rohit Kumar Gupta v. State of Punjab

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Rohit Kumar Gupta v. State of Punjab

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Javed Akhtar v. Union of India

Kapil Chugh v. State of U.P

Santosh Agrawal (Goyal) v. Union of India

Read the full analysis