In a recent decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed the case of Ratnesh Singla, proprietor of M/s Maruti Alloys, who was arrested following a GST search operation for allegedly availing fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) through fake invoices. Singla contested the allegations, asserting that his business was legitimate and that he had provided necessary documentation, including balance sheets and GST invoices, to the authorities. Despite these claims, he remained in custody for over four months, with the department alleging a substantial loss to the government due to his actions.
The primary issue was whether Singla was entitled to regular bail pending trial under the CGST Act, given the accusations of significant financial loss to the state. The Court observed that the evidence against Singla was primarily documentary and had already been secured by the investigating agency, reducing the risk of interference with the investigation.
Read More: Calcutta High Court: Detained goods to be released under Section 129(1)(a) where Consignor’s ownership claim remains unrebutted [Order attached]
Noting that Singla had no prior criminal record and had already spent considerable time in custody, the Court emphasized that pre-trial detention should not be punitive, especially when the trial might be protracted and the maximum penalty is five years. Citing Supreme Court rulings, the Court stated that the seriousness of economic offences alone does not justify denying bail; factors like the potential for evidence tampering or witness influence must also be considered.
The Court found no evidence suggesting that Singla would disrupt the trial process if released on bail. Consequently, it concluded that further detention was unwarranted, granting him bail based on the cumulative circumstances.
Order Date - 18 May 2026
Parties: Ratnesh Singla Vs Directorate General of GST
Facts -
- Ratnesh Singla, proprietor/partner of M/s Maruti Alloys, was subjected to a GST search operation on 19.01.2026 and was subsequently arrested on 20.01.2026 for allegedly availing fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) through fake invoices.
- The petitioner claimed that his business was genuine and actively functioning, and that all supporting documents such as balance sheets, electricity bills, GST invoices, and e-way bills were provided to the GST authorities to establish actual business transactions.
- He argued that the GST department wrongly alleged fake transactions and illegal ITC claims despite earlier verification and processing of his ITC-related claims by the department.
- Ratnesh Singla remained in custody for more than four months, while the department alleged that he and his partner caused a loss of approximately ₹47.50 crore to the Government by availing ITC on invoices involving a taxable value of about ₹263.94 crore.
Issue -
- Whether the petitioner accused of wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit under the CGST Act was entitled to regular bail pending trial despite allegations of causing substantial loss to the State exchequer.
Order -
- The Court observed that the prosecution case substantially rests on documentary and electronic records which had already been seized and were in the possession of the investigating agency. Since the evidence was largely secured, the possibility of the petitioner interfering with the investigation was considerably reduced.
- The Court noted that the petitioner had already undergone more than four months of custody and had no disclosed criminal antecedents. It emphasized that pre-trial detention cannot be continued as a punitive measure, particularly when the trial is likely to take time and the maximum punishment prescribed is five years.
- Relying upon decisions of the Supreme Court including Sanjay Chandra, State of Kerala v. Raneef and Ashutosh Garg, the Court reiterated that seriousness of economic offences alone cannot be a ground to deny bail. The Court must also assess the likelihood of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or evading trial.
- The Court found no material indicating that the petitioner, if released on bail, would tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or fail to cooperate with the trial. Considering the cumulative effect of these factors, continued judicial custody was held to serve no meaningful purpose.
