High Court of Karnataka
Venkatasubbaiah C v. Superintendent of Central Tax
For assessee
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9023 OF 2026
High Court of Karnataka
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9023 OF 2026
Where petitioners running a firm for battery recycling faced allegations of fictitious suppliers, bogus ITC and supplier untraceability, since petitioners held valid GST registration, cancellation or closure of suppliers post-supply did not per se disentitle ITC absent proof of collusion, had cooperated and had no antecedents, custodial interrogation for compoundable offences with maximum five-year term was unwarranted; Anticipatory bail was to be granted subject to conditions
Section 69, read with section 132, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
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