Case Details: Jaydeep Mukeshbhai Virani vs. State of Gujarat - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 349 (Gujarat)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Nikhil S. Kariel, J.
-
Apurva N Mehta for the Applicant.
-
Utkarsh R Sharma & Jay Mehta, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The applicant filed an application for regular bail in connection with proceedings. The allegations recorded by the investigating authorities, including the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) were that the applicant, being an active partner, had availed fraudulent ITC on inward supplies from 38 firms whose GST registrations had been cancelled ab initio on the ground of being non-existent. It was submitted that the applicant had been arrested and remained in judicial custody, and that the investigation had been completed and a complaint had already been filed before the competent authority. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that since the investigation had been completed and the complaint had already been filed, no reasonable grounds existed to justify continued custody of the applicant. It was observed that the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 132 of the CGST Act had been taken into consideration. The Court analysed the principles governing bail, including the principles of personal liberty and the presumption of innocence, and found that these considerations weighed in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, the Court exercised its discretion to grant regular bail to the applicant, subject to prescribed conditions.
List of Cases Referred to
- Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [2012] 1 SCC 40 (para 7).
The post Bail Granted in ITC Fraud Case After Investigation | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
