Narender Kumar v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 35; GST statutory provision - Section 41A; GST statutory provision - Section 70; GST statutory provision - Section 132; GST statutory provision - Section 132(1); GST statutory provision - Section 132(5); GST statutory provision - Section 439; GST statutory provision - Section 480; GST statutory provision - Section 483

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The Applicant further submits that the grounds of arrest do not disclose any role played by the Applicant in the alleged transaction. The Applicant‟s arrest had occurred with out any prior notice and with a significant delay in providing the arrest documents. The Respondent has not complied with the directions issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014 8 SCC 273. Operative disposition: The Bail Application is accordingly, allowed. The pending Applications are disposed of
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

DELHIDGGI under Section 132(1)(c)(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”). 2. The Applicant submits that he was arrested on 04.06.2025 from his residence without any prior se rvice of Summons or Notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. or Section 35 BNSS, to join the investigation. He was forced to sign the summons after his arrest. However, the Arrest Memo and the grounds of arrest were provided to him after an inordinate delay of nearly 14 hours, in violation of the principles of natural justice and due process. 3. The Applicant further submits that the grounds of arrest do not disclose any role played by the Applicant in the alleged transaction.

The Applicant‟s arrest had occurred with out any prior notice and with a significant delay in providing the arrest documents. The Respondent has not complied with the directions issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014 8 SCC 273. 4. Further, the details of the alleged transa ction and the details of the alleged Firms were not provided at the time of arrest. According to the Applicant, the Officer of the Respondent has failed to comply with their own Departmental Instruction bearing Instruction No. 02/2022 -23 [GST - Investigation] dated 17.08.2022 pertaining to the guidelines for arrest and bail in relation to offences punishable under the CGST Act.

Kartik Sikka @ Sharad Sikka. Thereafter, statement of the Applicant was recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act. The prosecution Complaint has been filed on 30.07.2025. 20. In response to the Applicant‟s submission regarding the inapplicability of Section 132 as it stood prior to the amendment w.e.f. 22.12.2020, it is submitted that Section 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) would be applicable. 21. It was further submitted that the conduct of the Applicant was of concern since he did not serv e any advance Notice in the first Bail Application or in bail Application filed before the Ld. ASJ. Further, during the judicial custody of the Applicant, he had been asked if he had filed any Bail Application, to which he had categorically responded in the negative.

Submissions heard and Record perused. 23. The Respondent has opposed the Bail on the ground that the investigation is ongoing qua one absconding person , but that cannot be a ground to deny bail to the Applicant against whom the investigations have been completed and the Complaint filed in the Court. 24. The fundamental principles for consideration in a Bail for the offences under Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the CGST Act were explained by the Apex Court in Vineet Jain v. Union of India , Criminal Appeal No. 2269 of 2025 dated 28.04.2025, as under: “The offences alleged against the appellant are under Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The maximum sentence is of 5 years with fine. A charge -sheet has been filed. The appellant is in custody for a period of almost 7 months. The case is triable by a Court of a Judicia l Magistrate. The sentence is limited and in any case, the prosecution is based on documentary evidence. There are no antecedents. We are surprised to note that in a case like this, the appellant has been denied the benefit of bail at all levels, including the High Court and ultimately, he was forced to approach this Court. These are the cases where in normal course, before the Trial Courts, the accused should get bail unless there are some extra ordinary circumstances.”

evasion of tax by the petitioner is to the extent as provided under Section 132(1)(l)(i ), the punishment provided is, imprisonment which may extend to 5 years and fine. The petitioner has already undergone incarceration for more than four months and completion of trial, in any event, would take some time. Needless to mention that the petitioner if released on bail, is required to adhere to the conditions to be imposed and diligently participate in the trial. Further, in a case of the present nature, the evidence to be tendered by the respondent would essentially be documentary and electronic . The ocular evidence will be through official witnesses, due to which there can be no apprehension of tampering, intimidating or influencing. Therefore, keeping all these aspects in perspective, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find i t proper to grant the prayer made by the petitioner.”

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

that even if the allegations by the Respondent are taken to be true, the Applicant was only alleged to have „ retained the benefits‟ which was not an offence on the date as alleged by the Respondents. 10. It is further submitted that the Applicant had preferred a First Regular Bail Application under Section 480 BNSS before Ld. CJM , Patiala House Court on 10.06.2025, wherein the Respondent failed to appear for three consecutive dates and filed its Reply only on 23.06.2025 after an undue delay. The said bail Application was dismissed vide Order dated 30.06.2025 without giving any reasons. 11. Further, the Applicant had preferred a First Regular Bail Application under Section 483 BNSS before the Ld.

The DGGI is still in the process of identifying the trails of transactions in the present matter. 17. Ld. SPP on behalf of the Department has submitted that i t is a case of creation of availment and utilization of fraudulent ITC amounting to approximately Rs. 11.50 crores , through the creation of fake Firms. The accused persons, including the Applicant are alleged to be inv olved in

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

26. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, the Applicant has been judicial custody since 04.06.2025 The Complaint has already been filed in the Court. T he entire evidence has already been collected and is primarily be documentary . He has no criminal antecedents. There is l ittle likelihood of tampering with the evidence or of influencing the witnesses , who are all official witnesses. Further, as observed in the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, there exist no extraordinary circumstances to deny the bail to the Applicant. 27. It is therefore, considered fit to grant regular Bail to t he Applicant , Mr. Narender Kumar on the following conditions: I. The Applicant/Accused shall furnish a personal b ond in the sum of Rs.25,000/ - with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;

Operative decision and relief

The operative relief must be read from the final paragraphs of the complete packaged judgment.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Narender Kumar v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence concerns issue and context: the applicant further submits that the grounds of arrest do not disclose any role played by the applicant in the alleged transaction. the applicant‟s arrest had occurred with out any prior notice and with a significant delay in providing the arrest documents. the respondent has not complied with the directions issued by the apex court in arnesh kumar v. state of bihar, 2014 8 scc 273. operative disposition: the bail application is accordingly, allowed. the pending applications are disposed of The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in Bail Application No. 3065/2025.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Disposed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: The Applicant further submits that the grounds of arrest do not disclose any role played by the Applicant in the alleged transaction. The Applicant‟s arrest had occurred with out any prior notice and with a significant delay in providing the arrest documents. The Respondent has not complied with the directions issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014 8 SCC 273. Operative disposition: The Bail Application is accordingly, allowed. The pending Applications are disposed of Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 35; GST statutory provision - Section 41A; GST statutory provision - Section 70; GST statutory provision - Section 132; GST statutory provision - Section 132(1); GST statutory provision - Section 132(5); GST statutory provision - Section 439; GST statutory provision - Section 480; GST statutory provision - Section 483—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 35; GST statutory provision - Section 41A; GST statutory provision - Section 70; GST statutory provision - Section 132; GST statutory provision - Section 132(1); GST statutory provision - Section 132(5); GST statutory provision - Section 439; GST statutory provision - Section 480; GST statutory provision - Section 483 and the decision date 2025-10-08; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is Narender Kumar v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence, the proceeding is Bail Application No. 3065/2025, and the decision is dated 2025-10-08. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 35; GST statutory provision - Section 41A; GST statutory provision - Section 70; GST statutory provision - Section 132; GST statutory provision - Section 132(1); GST statutory provision - Section 132(5); GST statutory provision - Section 439; GST statutory provision - Section 480; GST statutory provision - Section 483. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Disposed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 35 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 41A — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 70 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 132 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 132(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 132(5) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 439 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 480 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 483 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE v. GIRISH SACHDEVA — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s Technosys Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s Power Line Air Express v. Principal Commissioner of CGST and Others — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• CGST, Delhi West v. Vishal Goyal — Delhi High Court · Disposed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Search, Summons & Arrest

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY