Aniket Sovasaria V. The Union of India and Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax, Intelligence Guwahati Zonal Unit and The Assistant Director of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence Guwahati Zonal Unit

Bail Appln./1140/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Aniket Sovasaria, accused of involvement in passing on ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs.6.12 Crores without actual supply of goods, through his associations with M/s Aadi Enterprises and M/s Trident Consulting. The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, citing illegal and arbitrary arrest without proper authorization or compliance with statutory pre-conditions. The prosecution opposed bail, highlighting the seriousness of the GST evasion and the petitioner's previous involvement in a similar case. The court's decision to grant bail was based on procedural lapses in the arrest and detention process, as well as the duration of custody and the filing of a charge-sheet.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 692034 (HC-ASSAM NAGALAND MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India and others, Natwar Kumar Jalan Vs. Union of India and Others, Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India, Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI and another, Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Amitabh Bacchan, Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd., Kingsway, Nagpur Vs. Income Tax Officer, SIT Nagpur
• Laws Referred To: CGST Act, 2017, IGST Act, 2017, BNSS, 2023
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S C KEYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A GOYAL; DIVYANSH RATHI; A CHOUDHURY
• Keywords: Bail application; Judicial Custody; Ineligible ITC; Arrest without authority; Illegal and arbitrary arrest
• Section: 69; 20; 35; 41(a); 132(1)(c); 479(2)

Judgement Text

"Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010078352025 2025:GAU-AS:5717 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1140/2025 ANIKET SOVASARIA S/O LATE RADHESHYAM SOVASARIA R/O FLAT NO. 2D, ROYAL PLAZA APARTMENT, BASISTHA BYE LANE 1 NEAR BSNL OFFICE, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (M), PIN-781028 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, INTELLIGENCE GUWAHATI ZONAL UNIT, H.N. -77, RUPKONWAR JYOTIPRASAD AGARWALA ROAD, PANJABARI, GUWAHATI-781027 2:THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE GUWAHATI ZONAL UNIT H.N. -77 RUPKONWAR JYOTI PRASAD AGARWALA ROAD PANJABARI GUWAHATI-781027 3:THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX INTELLIGENCE GUWAHATI ZONAL UNIT GUWAHATI HOUSE NO. 77 PANJABARI GUWAHATI-2 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A GOYAL, MR. DIVYANSH RATHI,MR. A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GST, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER 08.05.2025 Heard Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, GST. 2. By filing this application u/s 483 BNSS, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Sri Aniket Sovasaria has sought for bail in connection with case No. DGGI/INT/INTL/34/2025 u/s 132 (1) (C) of CGST Act, 2017 R/W Section 20 of IGST Act, 2017, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, being the partner of M/s Aadi Enterprises was found to be involved in passing on of ineligible ITC of Rs.5.69 Crores by M/s Aadi Enterprises and Rs.0.43 Crores by M/s Trident Consulting, totaling to Rs.6.12 Crores without actual supply of goods. 4. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody for last 98 days since his arrest on 23.01.2025. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been laid as such there is no question of hampering of investigation or tampering with the evidence of the witnesses. 5. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no.3 without issuing any notice u/s 35 of BNSS, 2023 and without fulfilling the pre-conditions as mandated u/s 69 of CGST Act and without conducting any assessment proceeding by the Assessing authority for the Page No.# 3/6 determination of tax, cess, penalty and interest liability, arrested the petitioner. Despite the fact that the authorization to arrest the petitioner was not given by the Commissioner as mandated u/s 69 of CGST Act. It is also alleged that the petitioner was not provided with the “reason to believe” which is a pre-condition for forming an opinion to arrest. As such, the arrest of the petitioner is without authority of law, illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 6. By referring the judgment of Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India and others, vide WP (C) No.336/2018, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in the present case, since the punishment is up to 5 years, no summons u/s 35 (3) of BNSS, 2023 [Section 41 A of Cr.PC] was issued to the petitioner and as such the respondents have not complied with the aforesaid provisions which mandates for issuance of a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received for commission of such offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the following case laws - a) WP(C) 6821/2024 [ Natwar Kumar Jalan Vs. Union of India and Others] b) Criminal Appeal No.2269/2025 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.4349/2025 [Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India] c) (2014) 8 SCC 273 [Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another] d)(2022) 10 SCC 51 [ Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI and Page No.# 4/6 another] e) (2016) 11 SCC 748 [ Commissioner of Income Tax,Mumbai Vs. Amitabh Bacchan] f) (1965) SCC Online SC 189 [ Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd., Kingsway, Nagpur Vs. Income Tax Officer, SIT Nagpur] 7. Per contra, Mr. Keyal has vehemently opposed in granting bail to the petitioner by stating that the petitioner being the partner of M/s Aadi Enterprises and M/s Trident Consulting, is involved in evasion of GST by way of passing of ineligible ITC of Rs.6.12 crores. It is further submitted that the investigation has revealed that the petitioner has obtained the GST registration on the basis of forged rent agreement. The petitioner was arrested in a GST evasion case in the past also. 8. By referring the provision of Section 479(2) of BNSS, Mr. Keyal has submitted that as per Section 479(2), where an investigation, enquiry or trial in more than one offence or in multiple cases are pending against a person, he shall not be released on bail by the Court. 9. It is also contended by learned counsel for the GST that charge-sheet has been laid in this case, hence, the petitioner may approach before the trial court seeking regular bail. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the trial court records and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as above, it is not in dispute that Section 41(A) notice is mandatory in case the offence is punishable up to 7 years of imprisonment which is not followed in this case. It is also not in dispute that u/s 132 (1) of CGST Act, 2017, the maximum Page No.# 5/6 sentence is of 5 years with fine. It is true that another case is pending against the petitioner before the Court of learned Magistrate, however, in this case also, charge-sheet has been laid. The petitioner has been detained in custody for more than 3 months. 11. In the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), it was directed to the Investigating Agencies and the Courts which are as follows – “(i)…. (ii) The Investigating Agencies and their officers are duty bound to comply with the mandate of Sections 41 and 41(A) Cr.PC and the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the Court followed by appropriate action. iii) The Courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Sections 41 and 41 (A) Cr.PC. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail …” 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as above, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, the petitioner, namely, 1. Sri Aniket Sovasaria shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two suitable sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the petitioner: (a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati without prior written permission from him/her; Page No.# 6/6 (b) shall regularly attend the trial court and cooperate with the court for early disposal of the trial; (c) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court. (d) shall not commit any such similar offence in future. 14. Breach of any of the above conditions, shall tantamount to cancellation of bail. 15. The observation made by the Court is only for the purpose of bail application and not on merits of the case. 16. The bail application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant "