Authority: High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad

Order Date: 16 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Sri Sandeep Kumar Goel (age ~46) and Smt. Deepa Goel (age ~45), partners of Vijay Industrial Needs LLP, a stainless‑steel and ferrous‑scrap supplier registered under the CGST Act, 2017.
  • Respondents: Union of India (Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue) and the Superintendent/Senior Intelligence Officer (Anti‑Evasion), GST Commissionerate, Secunderabad.
  • The petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail.
  • The petitioners are shown as accused in File No. GEXCOM/AE/INV/GST/1449/2024‑AE before the Senior Intelligence Officer (Anti‑Evasion).
  • Allegations: wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the period 15‑05‑2019 to 10‑06‑2024. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) alleges fraudulent ITC of approximately Rs 94.96 crore, of which Rs 70.93 crore exceeds the amount reflected in GSTR‑2A/2B. The Department also issued a fresh Show‑Cause Notice dated 07‑04‑2025 under Section 74(1) CGST Act demanding Rs 6,76,10,139.
  • Investigation details: Search conducted on 07‑06‑2024 under Section 67(2) CGST Act at the LLP’s premises; premises initially locked, later opened; no stock register, invoices missing for certain cash sales; four box files of quotations and purchase orders seized under Form GST INS‑02; no goods seized.
  • The petitioners claim full cooperation, with petitioner 1 having appeared before the authority and given statements on two occasions; they intend to appeal under Section 107 CGST Act, and the limitation period for appeal remains.
  • The respondents argue that the petitioners have repeatedly failed to appear despite summons issued from June 2024 to June 2026, and that custodial interrogation is necessary to trace money trails, identify fictitious suppliers, and prevent tampering with evidence.
  • Legal precedents cited include Tarun Jain v. DGGI (2021), Raghav Agrawal v. Commissioner (2024), P.V. Ramana Reddy v. Union of India (2019), Shravan Mehra v. Superintendent (2019), Sapna Jain v. Union of India (2019), Daulat Mehta v. Union of India (2021), and several Supreme Court decisions on arrest and anticipatory bail (Joginder Kumar, Arnesh Kumar, Siddharth, Satender Kumar Antil, P. Chidambaram, Arvind Kejriwal).
  • The court notes that arrest under Sections 69 and 132 CGST Act must be exercised only when “reasons to believe” exist and that custodial interrogation is not automatic.
  • The court observes that the primary evidentiary material (documents, electronic records) is already in the possession of the investigating agency, and the petitioners have undertaken to cooperate.

Final Outcome

  • The Criminal Petition is allowed; the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail subject to stringent conditions:

(A) Surrender before the respondent authority by 30‑07‑2026; if arrested, release on personal bond of Rs 5,00,000 each with two sureties of equal amount.

(B) Furnish complete residential address, mobile number, and contact details, and promptly inform of any changes.

(C) Appear before the investigating officer as and when directed for investigation and cooperate fully.

(D) Not leave India without prior permission of the jurisdictional court.

(E) Not induce, threaten, or influence any person acquainted with the case, nor tamper with evidence.

(F) Strictly comply with all conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) BNSS.

(G) Any willful breach will attract cancellation of bail and appropriate proceedings.

  • The court clarifies that the bail order does not preclude the investigating agency from exercising its statutory power of arrest in the future if circumstances warrant.

Topics: GST Fraud, Anticipatory Bail, Tax Evasion