The Allahabad High Court has not considered the bail appeal of Ankit Johri and Shiva Johri in a fake GST input tax credit (ITC) fraud case of alleged tax evasion of more than Rs 2.01 crore. Justice Ashutosh Srivastava passed the order in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10225 of 2026.
As per the prosecution, the case is concerned with the fake GST transactions performed via fictitious firms along with M/s Bharat Building Materials and M/s Lam Enterprises.
It was alleged by the authorities that fake inward supply invoices were generated without actual goods movement, allowing incorrect claim of input tax credit (ITC) of nearly Rs 99.41 lakh and causing a total revenue loss surpassing Rs 2 crore to the State.
It was claimed by the applicants that they were not named in the original FIR and were implicated thereafter on the grounds of statements made by co-accused persons.
Their counsel filed that both applicants were only freelance GST return service providers who supported traders in GST return filing and uploading data on the GST portal for nominal fees. It was stated that there was no money trail or incriminating evidence linking them to the alleged fraud.
Read Also: Complete Information Related to Bogus Invoicing Under GST
Also, the defence claimed that offences of bogus invoices and incorrect ITC comes u/s 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, and thus general penal provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) could not be invoked to bypass safeguards given under the GST law.
The Court did not accept such submissions and put reliance on the Division Bench ruling in Govind Enterprises vs State of U.P., holding that prosecution under penal laws can continue alongside GST proceedings. As per the Court, Sections 131 and 132 of the GST law do not bar registration of FIRs under the general criminal law.
At the time of investigation, authorities allegedly discovered that the accused persons utilised Aadhaar and PAN details of co-accused Sudip Kumar to create bogus firms and generate fake e-way bills displaying fictitious supply of cement without actual transportation of goods.
As per the Court, the prima facie evidence gathered during the investigation established the applicants’ involvement in creating non-existent firms and facilitating bogus transactions.
Also Read: 5 Steps to Take Before an Inspection During Fake GSTIN Drive
Acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations and the material gathered during the investigation, the HC denied bail to the applicants at this stage.
| Case Title | Ankit Johri And Another vs. State of U.P |
| Case No. | Bail Application No. 9389 of 2026 |
| For the Appellant | Avijit Saxena |
| For the Respondent | G.A. |
| Allahabad High Court | Read Order |
