High Court of Allahabad21 July 2026

Shivam Dwivedi v. Union of India

For assessee

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.15773 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where applicant, proprietor of areca nut trading firm, was prosecuted for alleged issuance of bogus retail invoices for B2B supplies and routing of cash via brokers, with no prior criminal history, undisclosed evasion amount, assessment pending, completed investigation, and no evidence of risk to justice, bail was justified as pre-conviction detention was not punitive and bail was rule

Provisions considered

CGST S.132

Section 132 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

Allahabad High Court11 Aug 2026

For assessee

Javed Akhtar v. Union of India

Where applicant accused of availing fraudulent input tax credit on invoices of non-existent firms was in custody after investigation completion, no evidence showed likelihood of tampering, intimidation or evasion, assessment was not initiated, maximum punishment was five years, and trial was unlikely soon, bail was justified considering presumption of innocence, speedy trial, and bail as rule

Allahabad High Court11 Aug 2026

For assessee

Kapil Chugh v. State of U.P

Where authorities alleged firm availed and passed on fake ITC through bogus invoices and initiated simultaneous GST demand and BNS prosecution based on same facts, since genesis was GST non-payment and BNSS mandates such offences be investigated under special enactments, prosecution under BNS for same conduct was barred and all parallel criminal proceedings under general law were quashed against applicant

Chhattisgarh High Court7 Aug 2026

For revenue

Santosh Agrawal (Goyal) v. Union of India

Where petitioner, a private businessman, filed PIL seeking directions for investigation and recovery in alleged tax evasion by specific parties based on supplied documents and previous dismissal for want of locus and same was to be dismissed as petitioner failed to disclose any element of genuine public interest; Security amount deposited by petitioner was to be forfeited

CGST S.132

Shivam Dwivedi v. Union of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Shivam Dwivedi v. Union of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Javed Akhtar v. Union of India

Kapil Chugh v. State of U.P

Santosh Agrawal (Goyal) v. Union of India

Read the full analysis