This compilation indexes twelve bail application orders decided by Indian High Courts between August and September 2026, all arising from prosecutions under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The rulings span the Allahabad, Rajasthan (Jaipur and Jodhpur), Punjab-Haryana, Chhattisgarh, and Gujarat High Courts. Each entry is drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus and is presented here as a factual index for use by tax law researchers, in-house compliance teams, and legal practitioners tracking enforcement trends under the CGST criminal liability framework.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference compiled for legal research purposes. It does not constitute legal advice, tax advice, or an opinion on any person's legal position. Readers must independently verify all rulings against the full text of each judgment and check for any subsequent stays, reversals, or appeals before relying on them.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 creates criminal liability for specified offences relating to GST, including (but not limited to) the supply of goods or services without issuing invoices, the issuance of invoices without actual supply, availing or utilising fraudulent input tax credit, the collection of tax but failure to deposit it with the government, and the falsification of financial records. The section prescribes imprisonment and fine as punishment, with the severity of the sentence depending on the quantum of tax evaded — offences involving amounts above prescribed thresholds are cognisable and non-bailable, while those involving lesser amounts are non-cognisable and bailable. Compounding of offences is separately governed under Section 138 of the CGST Act. Arrest powers are provided under Section 69, and the power to summon persons is provided under Section 70, both of which frequently appear alongside Section 132 prosecutions.

The 12 rulings

1. Tusharanshu Singhal S/O Shri Banwari vs Union Of India

Bench: Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Date: 14 September 2026
Sections engaged: 132, 69
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The bail application (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13115/2026) was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita on behalf of the accused-petitioner, who was in judicial custody since 02-07-2026 in connection with case no. GEXCOM/AE/INV/GST/6446/2026-AE-O/OCOMMR-CGST, ALWAR registered at the Office of the Central Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Alwar for the offence under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017. Per the source preview, the case arose out of an investigation initiated by the CGST Commissionerate, Alwar, pursuant to search proceedings conducted in February 2026 at the premises of M/s Bhagwati Trading Company.

2. Sanjeet Kumar vs Union Of India And 2 Others

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 14 September 2026
Sections engaged: 132(1), 132(5), 132(i), 20(xv)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The bail application (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27068 of 2026, Neutral Citation No. 2026:AHC:191841) was filed before the Allahabad High Court in connection with proceedings involving the supply of Areca nuts, with the applicant being the owner of M/s Ganga Trading Company. The applicant sought parity with co-accused Shivam Dwivedi, who had already been enlarged on bail by order dated 21.7.2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15773 of 2026, and with co-accused Dilip Kumar Jha, who had also been granted bail by order dated 16.4.2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11595 of 2026; the applicant had no criminal history and had been in custody since 1.2.2026.

3. Lalit Chandak vs Union Of India

Bench: Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Date: 14 September 2026
Sections engaged: 132, 70
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The bail application (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10586/2026) was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the order dated 18.07.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur in Bail Application No. 1229/2026, whereby the bail application of the petitioner was rejected in connection with Case No. GEXCOM/AE/1661/2026-AE-O/o COMMR-CGST-JODHPUR for offences under Section 132(1)(b), (c), (f) & (l) of the CGST Act, 2017. Per the source preview, the petitioner was in custody since 15.07.2026.

4. Mahesh Gupta vs Union Of India And Another

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 8 September 2026
Sections engaged: 132, 67, 69, 70
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (CRM-M-17743-2026 (O&M)) was heard together with CRM-M-15056-2026 (O&M) (Prayank Gupta vs Union of India and Another) as both petitions arose out of the same investigation and involved identical questions of law and substantially similar facts; both petitions were filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking anticipatory bail in connection with proceedings initiated by the respondent department under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. Per the source preview, facts were taken from CRM-M-15056-2026 for convenience.

5. Jaideep Singh Chandel vs Superintendent (Preventive)

Bench: Chattisgarh High Court
Date: 31 August 2026
Sections engaged: 132(1)(c), 138, 29, 70
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This was the first bail application (MCRC No. 6868 of 2026, Neutral Citation No. 2026:CGHC:38396) filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail; the applicant was arrested in connection with Complaint Case No./Crime No. 163/PREV/GST/2025-26, PS/Department: Office of the Principal Commissioner, Central GST, District Raipur for an offence punishable under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. Per the source preview, the applicant is described as the Director of the firm Meridian Steels And Infra Private Limited.

6. Harish Wadhwani vs Directorate General Of Goods And

Bench: Chattisgarh High Court
Date: 31 August 2026
Sections engaged: 132(1), 132(1)(c), 132(5), 138, 70
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This was the first bail application (MCRC No. 6572 of 2026, Neutral Citation No. 2026:CGHC:38401) filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail; the applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. DGGI/INV/GST/111/2026-Gr-VI, dated 18.1.2025 (AD220426004576B), PS/Department: Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence/DGGI, Regional Unit, Raipur, District Raipur for an offence punishable under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. Per the source preview, the prosecution case arose from an investigation conducted by the DGGI Raipur Zonal Unit.

7. Chinmaya Mishra S/O Nrusingha Mishra vs State Of Gujarat

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 31 August 2026
Sections engaged: 132(1)(a), 132(1)(i), 132(5), 210, 67(2), 70
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The application (R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Regular Bail — After Chargesheet) No. 11936 of 2026, Neutral Citation No. R/CR.MA/11936/2026) was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for regular bail in connection with File No. DGGI/INV/GST/2478/2025 registered with the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Gandhidham Regional Unit, Gandhidham, for offences under Section 132(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 read with Section 132(1)(i) and Section 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, and Section 210 of BNSS, 2023. Rule was issued and the learned APP waived service of rule for the respondent-State per the source preview.

8. Pramod Chandra Navik S/O Shri Phool vs Union Of India

Bench: Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Date: 24 August 2026
Sections engaged: 137, 69, 132
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The bail application (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13050/2026) was filed in connection with an alleged GST/ITC fraud; the petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner had resigned as Director of the concerned company on 12.07.2024, whereas the alleged bogus firms and transactions came into existence only from October 2025 onwards, and argued there was no factual or chronological nexus between the petitioner and the alleged offences. It was further submitted that the Trial Court, while rejecting anticipatory bail on 28.07.2026, failed to properly appreciate the material on record, and that the finding of non-cooperation was incorrect as the petitioner had appeared through authorised counsel on 19.06.2026, sought two weeks' time, and communicated the same by email along with his vakalatnama, after which no further summons was issued.

9. Karan Kochhar vs Inspector Of Cgst Commissionerate

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 24 August 2026
Sections engaged: 132, 70
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This petition for bail (CRM-M No. 37441 of 2026 (O&M)) was the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; the petitioner, who was in custody, sought bail in a case arising out of a complaint before the Punjab-Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Per the source preview, the petitioner's counsel cited the petitioner's clean antecedents and the maximum punishment prescribed for the commission of the offence as grounds, and the court record reflects a custody certificate filed by the State counsel.

10. Arun Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 17 August 2026
Sections engaged: 66, 132
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The bail application (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17529 of 2026, Neutral Citation No. 2026:AHC:172576) was filed before the Allahabad High Court; the applicant was running a firm in the name of Sarvashri Kumar Trading Company and submitted that he was a labourer whose documents had been misused by a co-accused named Danish who was instrumental in opening the firm by taking documents provided for the Pradhan Mantri Awas Scheme. The applicant's counsel further submitted that no verification by the GST department was made at the time of registration of the firm, the charge sheet had been submitted, the maximum punishment is five years, and the applicant had no criminal history.

11. Yogesh Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 14 August 2026
Sections engaged: 132
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The bail application (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26883 of 2026, Neutral Citation No. 2026:AHC:171589) was filed before the Allahabad High Court; the applicant is the proprietor of the firm Shyam Traders and it was alleged that he had submitted forged documents and availed tax benefits, causing a revenue loss to the tune of Rs. 13.23 crores. The applicant's counsel submitted that the charge sheet had been submitted, the maximum punishment is five years and the offence is triable by the Magistrate concerned, the applicant had no criminal history, and the applicant had been languishing in jail since 29.1.2026.

12. Javed Akhtar vs Union Of India

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 11 August 2026
Sections engaged: 132
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The bail application (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15340 of 2026, Neutral Citation No. 2026:AHC:168390) was filed before the Allahabad High Court; the applicant's counsel submitted that it was alleged the applicant had availed fraudulently Input Tax Credit on the strength of invoices issued by non-existent firms, that the transaction period was the year 2020, and that searches were conducted in the year 2021 — more than one year after the transactions. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant had not created any forged firm and that bona fide business transactions between the parties had resulted in the proceedings under the CGST Act; a rejoinder affidavit filed by the applicant's counsel was taken on record.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Bail applications under BNSS Section 483 dominate. Across virtually all twelve cases, the procedural vehicle is Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — the successor to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — reflecting courts' adaptation to the new procedural code in GST criminal matters.
Section 132 CGST is consistently the substantive offence charged. Every case in this compilation engages Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, in whole or in specific sub-clauses (such as 132(1)(c) or 132(1)(a)), confirming that Section 132 prosecutions are the central basis for GST-related arrest and detention across multiple High Court jurisdictions.
Multiple agencies appear as complainants. The cases show prosecutions initiated by a range of enforcement bodies: CGST Commissionerates (Alwar, Jodhpur), the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) Raipur Zonal Unit, DGGI Gandhidham Regional Unit, and state GST departments — indicating that Section 132 enforcement is decentralised across field formations.
Parity with co-accused and clean antecedents are recurring bail arguments. In multiple cases (including cases 2 and 9 from the source preview), applicants rely on the grant of bail to co-accused persons and assert their own clean criminal history as grounds for parity, a pattern consistent with established bail jurisprudence cited by multiple courts.
Charge-sheet submission and maximum sentence are standard grounds. In several Allahabad High Court cases (cases 10, 11, 12), counsel consistently pointed to the submission of charge sheets and the five-year maximum punishment under Section 132 as grounds militating in favour of bail — suggesting a recognisable litigation template being deployed across similar matters in that court.

How to use this compilation

Researchers should treat this index as a starting point for identifying relevant High Court bail decisions under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017. Each entry provides the case identity, bench, date, and sections engaged so that researchers can quickly locate orders from specific jurisdictions or involving specific sub-clauses of Section 132. The source previews on which the procedural paragraphs are based are necessarily partial — they do not contain the full operative order — and researchers must retrieve the complete judgment from the relevant High Court portal or indiankanoon.org before drawing any conclusions about the final outcome, reasoning, or applicability of a ruling to another matter.

Researchers should also verify whether any of these orders have been subsequently stayed, reversed on appeal, or overtaken by a Supreme Court decision. GST enforcement jurisprudence is rapidly evolving, and a bail order at the High Court level may be the subject of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court that is not reflected in this index. Similarly, CBIC instructions, clarifications, and prosecution guidelines issued after the date of any ruling listed here may affect the legal landscape in which these orders were decided.

Finally, this compilation focuses exclusively on bail application proceedings, which are interlocutory in nature. An order granting or refusing bail is not a determination of guilt or innocence, and should not be read as a finding on the merits of the underlying prosecution. Practitioners and researchers should consult the full trial court and appellate court record, including any compounding applications or adjudication orders under the CGST Act, for a complete picture of any individual 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.

Section 132 CGST Bail Applications: 12 High Court Rulings (2026)