Facts of the Case

The accused, Deepak Shaw, proprietor of M/s Barrel Bitumen, sought bail under Section 483 BNSS after being detained since 15.06.2026 in a Special Task Force case registered on an FIR by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax alleging fraudulent availment of input tax credit through fictitious firms, namely M/s Assam Bitumex, M/s Barrel Bitumex, and M/s Aida Bitumex, in violation of the Assam GST Act. The prosecution alleged input tax credit fraud amounting to Rs. 6,51,79,296 availed through forged invoices without actual supply of goods. The accused claimed he was paid only Rs. 5,000 by one Manoj Shaw, who allegedly collected his identity documents and OTPs to operate the firm, and that a co-accused had already been released on bail.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether continued custodial detention of the accused was warranted given the stage of investigation.
  2. Whether the accused's limited, allegedly unwitting role in the alleged fake-invoicing racket justified bail.
  3. Whether parity with a co-accused already granted bail should be extended to the present accused.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The accused was merely a nominal proprietor whose identity documents, bank passbook and OTPs were misused by Manoj Shaw, who actually operated the firm and reaped the benefits.
  • The case rested largely on electronic records and documentary evidence already seized by the investigating officer, reducing the need for further custodial interrogation.
  • The co-accused in the same case had already been enlarged on bail, warranting similar treatment on grounds of parity.
  • The accused was willing to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation if released.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Department produced the case diary showing that input tax credit worth Rs. 6.51 crore had been fraudulently availed using forged invoices and non-existent firms, causing loss to the exchequer.
  • It was argued that the accused derived monthly financial benefit from the fraudulent firm's operations and that investigation was still at a crucial stage, warranting continued detention.

Court Order / Findings

  • On perusing the case diary with the assistance of the State's counsel, the Court found that the accused had received only Rs. 5,000 while Manoj Shaw, who collected his documents and OTPs, actually operated the firm.
  • Balancing the period of detention already undergone against the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the Court held that further custodial detention was not warranted in the interest of investigation.
  • Bail was granted on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati.
  • The case diary was directed to be returned and the bail application was accordingly disposed of.

Important Clarification

  • In GST fraud prosecutions, courts weigh the accused's actual, provable role against the total fraud amount rather than treating every named proprietor as equally culpable.
  • Prolonged pre-charge detention, cooperation with investigators, and parity with similarly placed co-accused already on bail are relevant factors even in economic offences involving large evasion figures.
  • Availability of electronic and documentary evidence already in the investigating agency's custody reduces the necessity of continued custodial interrogation for bail purposes.

Sections Involved

  • Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – the state enactment under which the alleged fraudulent invoicing and ITC availment occurred.
  • Section 483, BNSS, 2023 – provision under which the bail application was filed before the High Court.
  • Sections 61(2)/318(3)/319(2)/336(3)/338/340(2), BNS – penal provisions invoked alongside the GST fraud allegations.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision favours the accused. Bail was granted considering his limited proven role, cooperation, and parity with a co-accused, notwithstanding the substantial alleged input tax credit fraud.

Case Details

Gauhati High Court (Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh); Bail Appln./2204/2026; Deepak Shaw vs State of Assam; Coram: Justice Robin Phukan; Order dated 11.08.2026.

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.