Facts of the Case

This is a criminal cheating case under the Indian Penal Code, not a GST proceeding — a cancelled GST registration number appearing on forged invoices is only one fact relevant to the bail court's assessment of the applicant's conduct. Kamta Haridas Soni, who runs "Soni Gold Ltd Jewellery" at Kamothe, sought anticipatory bail before the Bombay High Court in connection with C.R. No. 287 of 2022, registered at Kamothe Police Station for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

According to the first informant, he was induced by the applicant in 2019 to part with money on a promise of receiving gold plus 5% monthly interest; he paid Rs. 18,70,000 through banking channels and allegedly a further Rs. 18,70,000 in cash, but the applicant delivered no gold and repaid only Rs. 3,40,000. When the applicant approached the Sessions Court for pre-arrest bail, he tendered invoices purporting to show delivery of the gold — but the Additional Sessions Judge recorded that the GST number on those invoices had already been cancelled before the invoices were even issued, suggesting the invoices were forged.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the applicant, who allegedly produced invoices bearing a cancelled GST number to mislead the Sessions Court into granting bail, was entitled to anticipatory bail from the High Court.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The applicant argued the dispute was essentially civil in nature — a failure to deliver goods despite receiving payment — and that custodial interrogation was unwarranted, and that he had in fact sold and delivered the gold and repaid part of the amount.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The prosecution highlighted that the applicant's own counsel had initially avoided mentioning that gold had allegedly been delivered, only raising it after the forged-invoice issue was pointed out, making his stand internally inconsistent, and that the invoices tendered before the Sessions Court bore a GST number already cancelled before their date of issue.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found the applicant's conduct — allegedly producing forged invoices with a cancelled GST number to mislead the Sessions Court into granting bail — a "disturbing feature" that disentitled him to discretionary relief, even though the underlying transaction might otherwise have looked civil in nature.
  • The anticipatory bail application was rejected, with the Court clarifying that its prima facie observations were confined only to determining entitlement to pre-arrest bail.

Important Clarification

The cancelled GST number here is evidence of alleged forgery in a cheating case, not a subject of GST adjudication — no GST demand, registration dispute, or return-filing issue was before the Court. The order's relevance is limited to how a bail court treats an applicant who appears to have tendered forged documents to secure relief.

Sections Involved

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406, 420
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 438 (anticipatory bail)

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the respondent (State of Maharashtra) — the anticipatory bail application was rejected; this is a bail decision, not a finding of guilt, and is unrelated to any GST law question.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
  • Case No.: Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3073 of 2023
  • Neutral Citation: 2023:BHC-AS:33785
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. J. Jamadar
  • Date of Order: 1st November, 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.