Between Individual Rights and Collective Justice - The Foundation of Bail Law
The law of bail has always involved a careful and delicate balance. On one side stands the individual's right to personal liberty; on the other stands the interest of society in ensuring that justice is neither delayed nor defeated. Rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the well-known principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" has guided courts for decades. It reflects the idea that a person should not be deprived of liberty unless there are compelling reasons to do so. At the same time, this principle has never been absolute. Courts have consistently exercised discretion by examining the nature of the offence, the role of the accused, the possibility of absconding, the likelihood of influencing witnesses, and the overall impact of the alleged conduct. In this sense, bail is not granted mechanically; it is the result of a careful judicial assessment where both liberty and justice are kept in view.
With the introduction and expansion of the Goods and Services Tax regime, this balance has become more complex. GST is built on trust - trust that taxpayers will correctly report their transactions, claim INPUT TAX CREDIT (ITC) honestly, and comply with the law in good faith. However, over time, this trust-based system has also been misused. Practices such as fake invoicing, fraudulent availment of ITC, circular trading, and the creation of networks of non-existent firms have become increasingly common in certain cases. These are no longer routine tax irregularities, but structured economic offences involving organised arrangements and systemic misuse of the credit mechanism (as discussed in detail later). As a result, offences under GST - especially those involving fake invoicing and ITC fraud - are now being viewed as serious economic offences rather than routine tax disputes.
It is in this changing environment that the issue of bail under GST has become more important. Courts are now confronted with cases involving complex financial structures, digital trails, and multi-layered transactions, requiring a more calibrated approach while considering bail. In such situations, the question is not only whether the accused should be granted bail, but also whether granting bail at a particular stage may affect the investigation or undermine the authorities' ability to uncover the full extent of the wrongdoing. This evolving judicial approach is clearly evident in two recent High Court decisions - Hansraj Gurjar vs Union of India (2026-VIL-396-RAJ, decided on 18.04.2026) and Rohan Tanna vs Union of India (2026-VIL-398-CHG, dated 20.04.2026). These rulings show that courts are increasingly treating GST fraud cases with greater seriousness, recognising that such offences can have a wider impact on the economy and therefore require a more cautious approach while deciding bail applications.
Bail Under GST: Governing Principles in the Context of Economic Offences
Although the law of bail is based on the protection of personal liberty, it has always been applied with balance and caution. Courts have repeatedly held that bail decisions must be taken after considering several factors, including the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, and the possible impact on the investigation. In the context of GST-related offences, these considerations have taken on a new dimension, as economic offences are now recognised as a separate and serious category within criminal law. Unlike traditional offences, where harm is often immediate and visible, economic offences operate through planning, coordination, and concealment. They may involve multiple persons, layered transactions, and complex documentation. For this reason, courts have consistently observed that such offences form a " class apart" and must be dealt with more carefully.
The seriousness with which courts now view GST-related fraud is clearly reflected in Hansraj Gurjar vs Union of India (2026-VIL-396-RAJ). The Court observed that cases involving large-scale tax evasion, supported by material gathered during investigation, are not isolated acts but part of a structured and deep-rooted conspiracy resulting in significant loss to the public exchequer. In this context, the Court relied on the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, where it was held that economic offences form a "class apart" and must be viewed differently while considering bail. The Supreme Court emphasised that such offences, involving deep-rooted conspiracies and substantial loss of public funds, are serious in nature and can affect the country's financial health. Applying these principles, the Rajasthan High Court did not treat the matter as a routine case of non-compliance but as part of an organised scheme involving fake firms, fabricated transactions, and deliberate tax evasion. The Court thus placed significant emphasis on the scale, organised nature, and economic impact of the alleged activity while rejecting the bail application.
Another important aspect that emerges from these decisions is the limited role of procedural arguments in serious economic offences. It is often argued that once the investigation is complete, or where the case is based mainly on documentary evidence already available to the authorities, continued custody is unnecessary. Similarly, reliance is placed on the duration of custody or provisions such as Section 480(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS] 2023 to claim bail as a matter of right. However, the Court has made it clear that these factors, though relevant, are not decisive. In Hansraj Gurjar, the Court specifically held that Section 480(6) does not confer any absolute or indefeasible right to bail and cannot be applied mechanically. This position also finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subhelal v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) 5 SCC 140 , where, while interpreting the earlier provision of Section 437(6) of the CrPC, it was held that although the provision recognises the right to a speedy trial, it does not mandate the grant of bail in every case. The Court clarified that the Magistrate retains the power to refuse bail by recording reasons, particularly where it is not desirable or not in the interest of justice to release the accused. This clearly shows that such provisions are discretionary, not automatic. Therefore, while Article 21 protects personal liberty, the Court emphasised that such liberty operates within the framework of due legal process. Importantly, it was also observed that mere length of incarceration, by itself, cannot justify bail in cases involving serious economic offences and substantial loss to the public exchequer. Notably, the alleged GST evasion in this case was stated to be approximately ₹48.41 crore, far exceeding the threshold prescribed under Section 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act. The provision contemplates a punishment of imprisonment for up to 5 years, along with a fine, where the amount of tax evaded or the input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised exceeds ₹5 crore. This factual matrix further reinforced the Court's view regarding the gravity and scale of the alleged offence. The overall approach of the courts, therefore, is to place greater emphasis on the gravity and impact of the offence, rather than treating procedural factors as automatically decisive.
A similar line of reasoning can be seen in Rohan Tanna vs Union of India (2026-VIL-398-CHG), where the Chhattisgarh High Court considered the issue of anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged ITC fraud of approximately ₹27 crore, again significantly exceeding the threshold specified under Section 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, thereby attracting the possibility of stringent punishment including imprisonment up to five years.
Building upon the same principles, the Court examined not only the nature of the allegations but also the stage and complexity of the investigation, as well as the role attributed to the accused in the alleged scheme. It rejected the argument that custodial interrogation was unnecessary merely because the evidence was largely documentary. The Court noted that in economic offences involving multiple entities, digital records, and layered transactions, investigation cannot be reduced to simple document verification and may require custodial interrogation to uncover the full extent of the transactions. The Court also took into account the legislative intent underlying Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, read with the amended compounding regime under Section 138. By virtue of the substitution effected through the Finance Act, 2023 (w.e.f. 01.10.2023), clause (c) of the first proviso to Section 138(1) specifically excludes offences under Section 132(1)(b) from the ambit of compounding. This deliberate legislative exclusion underscores the gravity attributed to offences involving fraudulent input tax credit, indicating that they are not to be treated as mere fiscal irregularities capable of settlement, but as serious economic offences warranting a cautious approach, even at the bail stage. In this background, the Court declined anticipatory bail, emphasising that in cases involving organised GST fraud, the investigation should proceed without obstruction, particularly at an early stage.
Taken together, these decisions indicate a clear shift in the approach to bail under GST. The courts are not moving away from the principle of personal liberty; rather, they are applying it with greater care and caution in cases involving organised economic offences. What emerges is a balanced approach in which liberty is respected but assessed alongside the seriousness of the offence and its impact on the investigation and public interest.
The evolving judicial approach discussed above has been further reinforced in the recent decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Kuldeep Goyal v. Joint Commissioner, Preventive GST and Another (2026-VIL-446-P&H, decided on 28.04.2026). In this case, the Court was dealing with a petition for anticipatory bail involving allegations of wrongful availment of input tax credit through fictitious transactions and fake invoices, having significant implications for the public exchequer. A key factor that weighed with the Court was the petitioner's conduct, particularly his failure to respond to summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act and his lack of cooperation with the ongoing investigation.
Emphasising that such economic offences have long-term, far-reaching ramifications for the country's financial health, the Court reiterated that they must be viewed with greater seriousness. It further observed that in cases involving complex, layered transactions, custodial interrogation may be necessary to fully unearth the fraud, and that granting anticipatory bail at an early stage could enable the accused to tamper with evidence or manipulate records, thereby frustrating the investigation. In the absence of any exceptional circumstances, and considering both the magnitude of the alleged fraud and the petitioner’s non-cooperative conduct, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail thereby reinforcing a consistent judicial approach emerging across High Courts in matters involving organised GST fraud.
The Larger Message for GST Litigation, Enforcement, and Professional Responsibility
These judgments have implications that go far beyond the individual cases. They reflect a broader change in how GST-related violations are viewed within the legal system. GST was introduced as a modern tax system aimed at improving transparency, efficiency, and ease of doing business. A key feature of this system is the seamless flow of ITC, which prevents tax cascading and ensures fairness in taxation. However, when this mechanism is misused through fake invoices and artificial credit chains, it becomes a tool for large-scale fraud. Courts are increasingly recognising the wider economic impact of GST fraud while deciding bail applications.
From the perspective of enforcement, these rulings support a more active and effective approach by investigating authorities. The courts have recognised that economic offences often involve complex structures, digital evidence, and multiple participants. In such situations, the investigation must be thorough and flexible. The refusal to grant anticipatory bail at an early stage, as seen in Rohan Tanna , reflects the concern that premature relief may prevent the authorities from uncovering the full extent of the fraud. At the same time, the courts have not given enforcement agencies unchecked powers. They have emphasised that all actions must remain within the framework of law and be subject to judicial scrutiny. This ensures that while enforcement is strong, it is also fair and accountable.
For professionals such as chartered accountants, tax consultants, and legal advisors, these developments carry an important message. GST compliance is no longer limited to the correct filing of returns or the proper classification of transactions. It now requires a broader sense of responsibility to ensure that business practices are genuine and transparent. In many cases of fake invoicing and circular trading, documentation appears proper on the surface, and professionals may be involved at various stages. This makes it essential for advisors to exercise due diligence and maintain high ethical standards. The risks are no longer limited to tax demands or penalties; they now include criminal proceedings, arrest, and denial of bail. An equally significant development, often overlooked in practice, is the widening of the scope of Section 132(1) of the CGST Act through the substitution of its opening words by the Finance Act, 2020, with effect from 01.01.2021. The provision now applies not only to a person who "commits" any of the specified offences, but also to one who "causes to commit and retains the benefits arising out of" such offences. This composite formulation marks a clear departure from the earlier position prevailing from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2020, where the scope of the provision was largely confined to persons directly committing the specified offences.
By employing the expression "causes to commit and retains the benefits", the legislature has consciously e xpanded the scope of liability beyond the principal offender. The deliberate use of the conjunction "and" is particularly significant, as it reflects a combined test of facilitation and benefit. In this expanded framework, advisors, consultants, and intermediaries may fall within the ambit of Section 132(1) where their role goes beyond mere professional advice and extends to active facilitation coupled with conscious retention or enjoyment of the benefits arising from the offence. The provision, therefore, signals a move towards a more accountability-driven regime, where participation - direct or indirect - cannot easily escape scrutiny. In this environment, the role of the professional is evolving - from a compliance facilitator to a protector of legal integrity.
From Presumption of Liberty to Discipline of Discretion
The recent line of decisions - including Hansraj Gurjar (Rajasthan High Court), Rohan Tanna (Chhattisgarh High Court), and Kuldeep Goyal (Punjab & Haryana High Court)—do more than decide whether bail should be granted in individual cases. They reflect a broader and more significant change in how courts are approaching offences under GST. Traditionally, the law has favoured granting bail on the principle that personal liberty should not be taken away unless absolutely necessary. However, these decisions show that when it comes to organised economic offences, especially those involving fake invoicing and fraudulent ITC, courts are now taking a more careful and balanced approach. These decisions make it clear that bail under GST is no longer approached as a routine procedural question, but as a matter requiring careful judicial calibration in light of the nature and scale of the alleged conduct. Therefore, while personal liberty remains important, it cannot be considered in isolation from these larger concerns.
What these judgments make clear is that the basic principles of bail have not changed, but the way they are applied is evolving. Courts are not moving away from the idea that bail is the rule, but they are applying this rule more thoughtfully in cases involving serious economic offences. Instead of focusing solely on factors such as the completion of the investigation or the documentary nature of the evidence, courts are now looking more closely at the nature and scale of the alleged fraud, the role of the accused, and the possibility that granting bail may affect the investigation. In cases where the offence appears to be part of an organised, well-planned activity involving multiple entities and large sums of money, courts are more cautious. This means that bail is no longer treated as routine relief, but as a decision that must be made after careful consideration of all aspects of the case.
This shift in approach also highlights an important underlying idea - that GST as a system depends heavily on trust. When this trust is misused through fake transactions and fraudulent claims, the damage extends beyond lost revenue. It affects the credibility of the entire system. In such situations, the law does not ignore the importance of personal liberty, but it ensures that liberty is exercised responsibly. The courts are trying to maintain a balance in which the rights of the accused are protected while the interests of justice and the integrity of the system are not compromised. In this sense, the traditional balance between liberty and justice has not been disturbed - it has simply been adjusted to meet the realities of modern economic offences. In the end, the evolving law of bail under GST leaves us with a simple yet enduring reflection:
Liberty may guide the path of law, yet cannot walk alone,
For where accountability is absent, justice stands undone.
By: CA Raj Jaggi and Kirti Jaggi, Assistant Professor, Asian Law College, Noida
CAclubindia
