This compilation indexes twelve High Court orders arising from bail applications filed by persons arrested under Section 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (and, in select cases, cognate State GST enactments). The rulings span five High Courts — Gauhati, Gujarat, Punjab-Haryana, Orissa, and Allahabad — and cover the period August 2021 to June 2026. The compilation is intended as a structured research reference for in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers tracking the procedural landscape of GST criminal enforcement and bail jurisprudence.

Research index only. This page is a neutral case-law digest. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice, tax advice, or any form of professional recommendation. Readers must verify each ruling against the full judgment text and check for subsequent stays, appeals, or reversals before relying on any order.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes the cognizability and bail-eligibility of offences enumerated under Section 132(1) of the Act. Offences involving tax evasion exceeding specified monetary thresholds — such as issuance of invoices without actual supply, fraudulent availment or passing on of Input Tax Credit, and collection of tax but failure to deposit the same — are classified as cognizable and non-bailable where the amount involved meets or exceeds the prescribed limit, thereby placing the accused before the regular bail framework applicable to serious criminal matters. The corresponding provisions of State GST Acts and the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (via Section 20) mirror this framework for intra-State and inter-State transactions respectively.

The 12 rulings

1. Shri Mukesh Jalan vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors

Bench: Gauhati High Court
Date: 17 June 2026
Sections engaged: 132(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed as Bail Application No. 1461/2026 under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the petitioner Mukesh Jalan — described as Director of M/s Sadguru Engineerings and Allied Services Private Limited — prayed for release on bail following his arrest. The respondents included the State of Assam represented by the Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Finance and Taxation, and the Principal Commissioner of State Tax; the substantive disposal is not captured in the available source preview.

2. Mohammad Yusuf Abudl Ghaffar Shaikh vs State Of Gujarat

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 15 April 2026
Sections engaged: 132(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The applicant filed Criminal Misc. Application (for Regular Bail — After Chargesheet) No. 3584 of 2026 under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking enlargement on regular bail in connection with File No. DGGI/INT/INTL/781/2025 GR 1 registered by the office of the ADG, DGGI Zonal Unit, Surat, for offences punishable under Section 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. The matter was heard after chargesheet and the substantive disposal is not captured in the available source preview.

3. Jitender Saharan vs Senior Intelligence Office

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 14 January 2026
Sections engaged: 132(1)(c), 132(5), 20(xv)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail in Case No. DGGI/INT/625/2025-GR-D, which was registered under Sections 132(1)(c) read with 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 and Section 20(xv) of the IGST Act, 2017 by the DGGI Chandigarh Zonal Unit. Per the source preview, allegations against the petitioner centred on the claim that four GST-registered entities — M/s Pukhraj Packaging Solutions, M/s Sun Industries, M/s Pukhraj Packaging Solutions Private Limited, and M/s Pukhraj Packaging Solutions — had availed, utilised, and passed on ineligible Input Tax Credit; a notice under Section 70 of the Act was also stated to have been issued against the petitioner.

4. Rattan Kumar Garg vs Directorate General Of GST

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 12 January 2026
Sections engaged: 132(1), 132(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Described in the source preview as the petitioner's first petition, the application was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail during pendency of trial/investigation in offences under Sections 132(1) read with 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. Allegations as per the source preview related to M/s Steel N Steel (GSTIN: 03AGOPG9408N2ZZ), a proprietary firm alleged to have been engaged in availing and passing on fraudulent ITC, with its registered address stated to be in the Dera Bassi Industrial Area, SAS Nagar, Punjab; the substantive disposal is not captured in the available source preview.

5. Ujjawal Kumar Agarwal vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors

Bench: Gauhati High Court
Date: 23 October 2025
Sections engaged: 132(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was instituted praying for regular bail to the petitioner, Shri Ujjawal Kumar Agarwal, Proprietor of M/s BKS Enterprises, in connection with Case No. CT/ENF/ARST/2025/04 registered under Section 132(5) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax enactment. The respondents included the State of Assam through the Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Finance and Taxation, and the Principal Commissioner of State Tax; the substantive disposal is not captured in the available source preview.

6. Ankit Ratilal Gunjariya vs State Of Gujarat

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 25 September 2025
Sections engaged: 132(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The applicant filed Criminal Misc. Application (for Regular Bail — Before Chargesheet) No. 18628 of 2025 under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking bail in connection with File No. DGGI/INV/GST/1186/2025 registered by the DGGI Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad, for an offence punishable under Section 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. The source preview indicates the court required the applicant to furnish documentary proof of complete, correct, and present address; the substantive final disposal is not captured in the available source preview.

7. Samir Kumar Sahu vs Union Of India .... Opposite Party(S)

Bench: Orissa High Court
Date: 30 May 2025
Sections engaged: 132(1)(b), 132(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Two bail petitions — BLAPL No. 3155 of 2025 (Samir Kumar Sahu) and BLAPL No. 3113 of 2025 (Anala Kumar Rao @ A. Kumar Rao) — were heard together and arose from 2(c) CC Case No. 06 of 2025, registered pursuant to F. No. DGGI/INTL/1188/2024 dated 15.01.2025, pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. Per the source preview, the case concerned allegations under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, and the matters were taken up through a hybrid arrangement; the substantive disposal is not captured in the available source preview.

8. Page No.# 1/14 vs Union Of India

Bench: Gauhati High Court
Date: 3 April 2025
Sections engaged: 132(1)(a), 132(5), 69
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was filed praying for bail to the accused/petitioner — identified in the source preview as Prabin Jha, resident of House No. 25, Kundil Nagar, Guwahati — who had been arrested in connection with Case No. DGGI/INT/INTL/259/2025 under Section 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. Per the source preview, the petitioner side filed an additional affidavit and the respondent side filed a written objection against the bail prayer; the substantive disposal is not captured in the available source preview.

9. Mohmadhaneef Mohmadhusein Ansari vs State Of Gujarat

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 8 September 2023
Sections engaged: 132(1)(b), 132(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The applicant, who was in custody at the time of filing, filed a regular bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with File No. ACST/U-0/J K Traders/2021-22 registered with the office of the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Unit-6, Ahmedabad, for offences punishable under Section 132(1)(b) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the CGST Act, 2017. Per the source preview, a complaint was given by the State Tax Officer, Unit-6, Ahmedabad, and the matter was heard before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad; the substantive disposal is not captured in the available source preview.

10. Maninder Sharma vs State Tax Officer

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 31 August 2022
Sections engaged: 132(1), 132(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The matter was decided as part of a batch of four connected petitions — CRM-M-24033-2021 (Maninder Sharma), CRM-M-32902-2021 (Vinod Kumar), CRM-M-32903-2021 (Sunny Mehta), and CRM-M-36121-2021 (Sandeep Singh) — all concerning alleged offences under Sections 132(1) and 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 before the Punjab-Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Per the source preview, the matters involved State Tax, Mobile Wing, Jalandhar, Punjab as respondent in the primary petitions, and tax amounts running into multiple crores were tabulated in the order; the substantive disposal is not captured in the available source preview.

11. Shri Roopak Vashishth vs Union Of India Through Principal

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 29 July 2022
Sections engaged: 132(1)(i), 132(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The bail application — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21536 of 2022, reserved on 25.07.2022 and delivered on 29.07.2022 — was filed on behalf of the applicant Shri Roopak Vashishth praying for bail in Case Crime No. 325 of 2020, Police Station DGGI, District Meerut. Per the source preview, allegations against the applicant included involvement in GST registration of fake firms using PAN cards, Aadhaar cards, and other information of other persons procured fraudulently, with ten firms stated to have collectively availed ITC of Rs. 7,46,88,414/- through fake/bogus invoices; the substantive disposal is not captured in the available source preview.

12. Sourav Bajoria vs Union Of India

Bench: Gauhati High Court
Date: 23 August 2021
Sections engaged: 132(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed as Bail Application No. 1718/2021 before the Gauhati High Court, heard on 19.08.2021 and decided on 23 August 2021. Per the source preview, the matter involved allegations relating to fake invoices and the order contains tabulated e-way bill data with entries referencing multiple GSTINs and vehicle movement records; the substantive final disposal is not captured in the available source preview.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Uniform procedural vehicle. Across all twelve rulings, the mechanism invoked is a bail application before a High Court — filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (older matters), Section 438 Cr.P.C. (anticipatory bail), or Sections 482–483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (newer matters from 2023 onward). This reflects the shift in the applicable criminal procedure code mid-series.
Concentrated forum activity in Gauhati and Gujarat. Four of the twelve rulings originate from the Gauhati High Court and three from the Gujarat High Court, suggesting particularly active enforcement by DGGI units and State tax authorities in Assam and Gujarat during the covered period.
Recurring allegation pattern — fraudulent ITC and fake invoices. Where the source previews disclose the underlying allegation, the consistent theme is fraudulent availment, utilisation, or passing on of Input Tax Credit through non-existent or shell firms and fake invoices — making Section 132(5) the operative penal classification in each case.
DGGI as the primary prosecuting authority. The majority of these applications arise from cases registered by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) at various Zonal Units (Guwahati, Surat, Chandigarh, Ahmedabad), reflecting the centralised enforcement architecture for serious GST offences at the federal level.
Outcome data not available in source previews. For all twelve rulings, the outcome field reads "Outcome not specified in source," indicating that the structured corpus captures the procedural filing and hearing stage but does not include the operative portion of the orders in sufficient detail to record a final bail outcome. Researchers should retrieve the full judgment text to determine the actual disposal.

How to use this compilation

This index is designed as a first-pass research tool to identify relevant High Court orders on bail applications under Section 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 and cognate State GST provisions. Because all twelve outcome fields are marked "Outcome not specified in source," this compilation is best used to surface case citations and hearing details, which can then be verified against the full judgment text available on indiankanoon.org or the respective High Court portals. Researchers should not treat the absence of an outcome record as indicating any particular result — the full order must be retrieved and read.

Before relying on any listed ruling in submissions or internal analysis, readers should check whether the order has been challenged in a higher forum (e.g., a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India), whether a stay has been granted, or whether the matter has been finally disposed of at trial level. Criminal bail orders are interlocutory in nature and may be modified or recalled; they do not represent final adjudications on the merits of the underlying tax evasion allegation.

Finally, practitioners should cross-reference each ruling with contemporaneous CBIC circulars, instructions issued by the Board regarding prosecution sanction thresholds, and any relevant Supreme Court pronouncements on Section 132 of the CGST Act that may affect the bail analysis applicable to the specific quantum of alleged tax evasion in each matter.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

GST Section 132(5) Bail Applications: 12 High Court Rulings (2021–2026)