JEST GST - 447

AUGUST 12 , 2026

Missing: The Primary Accused

By Vijay Kumar

THE tax department possesses an extraordinary, almost magical ability to alter the fundamental laws of corporate personality depending on the administrative weather.

When a company owes tax, interest, or penalties under civil adjudication proceedings, the revenue authorities treat it as a pristine, standalone, artificial "juristic person." Show Cause Notices are served diligently to the corporate address.

However, the moment an investigating officer gets an urge to file a criminal complaint - to invoke Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, - a bizarre phenomenon occurs. The corporate entity magically vanishes into thin air. The registered tax-paying entity is quietly forgotten, and a single, bewildered Director is dragged into a magistrate's court to face the penal music - alone.

Such was the curious, instructive, and ultimately damning case of Manoj Bansal v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Gurugram, decided by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on August 01, 2026, - 2026-TIOL-923-HC-P&H-GST and formally recorded as quashed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, on August 06, 2026

1. A GST crime thriller

Our story begins at the factory of Nikita Industries Pvt. Ltd. (NIPL) in Sonepat, Haryana - a company properly incorporated, properly registered under GST, and engaged in the rather unromantic business of manufacturing pure lead and lead alloys.

Everything about NIPL appeared proper-except, according to the DGGI, its purchase invoices. During a search, the investigators uncovered a treasure trove of incriminating documents: physical purchase invoices, transport biltis, and cash transaction ledgers.

DGGI alleged a classic GST procedural noir:

- NIPL had been buying raw lead metal in cash from the unorganized open market.

- To cover up these cash purchases, NIPL procured paper invoices through commission brokers.

- These paper invoices originated from a network of 31 dummy firms, fraudulently set up on paper in the names of unsuspecting individuals.

- On the strength of these "goods-less" invoices, NIPL availed fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the staggering tune of Rs. 15,44,48,757/- (Rupees 15.44 Crore).

So far, so GST.

2. Civil vs criminal

Following the standard statutory playbook, the department initiated civil recovery proceedings. On April 16, 2021, a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice was issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act.

Who was it issued to? Naturally, to NIPL, the registered person.

The demand was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority on January 16, 2025. Who filed the statutory first appeal under Section 107 before the Appellate Authority? NIPL.

NIPL was the taxpayer, the noticee, the appellant, and the alleged beneficiary of the ITC.

On February 05, 2021, the Deputy Director, DGGI Gurugram, instituted a formal criminal complaint (COMA-86-2021) under Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak.

However, a startling omission came to light. The complaint was filed exclusively against Manoj Bansal, a Director of NIPL, in his individual personal capacity.

NIPL was nowhere to be found on the memo of parties.

- Not as Accused No. 1.

- Not as a co-accused.

- Not mentioned in the array of offenders at all.

In short:

- The company committed the alleged statutory offence.

- The Director was prosecuted.

- The company was missing.

3. The Departmental Logic: "We Caught the Mastermind!"

When Manoj Bansal petitioned the High Court for quashing the prosecution, the DGGI defended its strategy with aggressive enthusiasm:

1. Manoj Bansal was not a mere passive innocent spectator.

2. Investigation had conclusively established that Bansal was the mastermind, the architect, and the primary beneficiary of the entire fraudulent apparatus.

3. He was the one who bought lead in cash, contacted brokers, obtained fake invoices from 31 paper entities, and caused a direct loss of over Rs. 15 crore to the public exchequer.

4. His prosecution was not based on vicarious liability, but on his direct, active, personal participation in orchestrating the crime.

5. The non-arraignment of the corporate entity was a mere technical irregularity that did not invalidate the proceedings against the ultimate wrongdoer.

Why bother dragging an artificial legal shell to a criminal court when you can put the breathing human being behind bars? In short, the department's theory was simple: why prosecute the legal person who actually availed the ITC when you can prosecute the biological person who signed the balance sheet?

4. Back to Statutory Basics

Counsel for Manoj Bansal submitted:

1. Under Section 16 of the CGST Act, only a "registered person" is legally entitled to take Input Tax Credit.

2. Section 2(94) defines a registered person as an entity registered under Section 25.

3. NIPL was the registered person. Manoj Bansal, in his individual capacity, was not a registered person and could neither take nor utilize ITC. Therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 132(1)(c) were missing against him personally.

4. Section 137 of the CGST Act governs "Offences by Companies." Sub-section (1) explicitly states that where an offence under the Act is committed by a company, "every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company... as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence..."

5. Section 137 of the CGST Act is identical in word, structure, and intent (pari materia) to Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881.

6. Decades of binding Supreme Court rulings have established that vicarious liability cannot exist in a vacuum.

He relied heavily on a formidable lineup of landmark judgements.

5. High Court brings the law back

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismantled the DGGI's prosecution with quiet legal precision and laid down in unambiguous terms:

- Section 137 of the CGST Act and Section 141 of the NI Act are pari materia. Both create a deeming legal fiction to attach vicarious criminal liability to individuals controlling a corporate body.

- Commission of the offence by the company is an express condition precedent. The company is a juristic person. It is NIPL that was registered, NIPL that received SCNs, NIPL that filed appeals, and NIPL that availed the Rs. 15.44 crore ITC.

- Since NIPL was never arrayed as an accused in the complaint, no vicarious liability could be fastened upon Manoj Bansal, regardless of how active his role as Director might have been.

- The department's insistence that it could prosecute the "architect" individually without prosecuting the corporate principal was rejected as completely lacking legal basis.

The Court held:

"Unless the company is prosecuted, no vicarious liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Prosecution of the petitioner, in his personal capacity, without arraigning the company, cannot proceed against settled principles of law."

Accordingly, Complaint COMA-86-2021 and all subsequent trial court proceedings were quashed.

6. Stop at the prison gate

On paper, Manoj Bansal is a neat case about statutory interpretation and corporate criminal liability. In real life, it is also about custody.

Manoj Bansal spent months in jail-incarcerated, isolated, and deprived of his fundamental right to personal liberty - all because an investigating agency filed a complaint that violated Supreme Court precedent and basic statutory structure.

An investigating officer, equipped with vast statutory powers of arrest under the CGST Act, failed to apply the most elementary rule of corporate criminal liability. A trial magistrate took cognizance of a defective complaint that was legally unsustainable.

By the time the High Court corrected the error, months of a citizen's life had been swallowed by custody.

This casualness toward pre-trial incarceration is fast becoming a structural feature of administrative enforcement.

Just a week ago, the Supreme Court expressed deep anguish in a case where a man had spent 22 years in jail following a wrongful conviction in a triple-murder case:

"We are deeply dismayed, and equally perturbed... a person taken into custody on mere suspicion... ... resulting in 22 years being erased out of a person's life without any reliable evidence."

Whether it is 22 years erased in a murder trial due to judicial apathy, or several months spent in jail under a GST prosecution that was legally unsustainable at its very inception, the underlying lesson is identical.

When statutory safeguards are treated as minor technicalities, the consequences are never academic. They are measured in human suffering, destroyed livelihoods, broken families, and unrecoverable years.

Months in custody are not measured in calendar pages-they are measured in missed birthdays, shuttered businesses, and the slow erosion of dignity.

7. Strict compliance? You first.

The Manoj Bansal judgment highlights a fascinating paradox.

Since you cannot put a certificate of incorporation behind bars, officers shortcut the statutory process and slap handcuffs directly on the Director.

The High Court has firmly reminded the DGGI that criminal law does not permit such executive shortcuts.

A company can be prosecuted. It can be summoned through its authorized representatives, tried, convicted, and subjected to heavy corporate fines.

By choosing to leave the company out of the complaint, the DGGI did not just commit a draftsperson's typo-it destroyed its own jurisdictional foundation to prosecute the Director.

The High Court's verdict in Manoj Bansal delivers the ultimate counter-punch to this administrative zeal:

"You want taxpayers to follow the law strictly? You first."

- If you allege that a company fraudulently availed Input Tax Credit, you must prosecute the company.

- If you want to fasten vicarious criminal liability on the Director, you must name the Director alongside the company.

- If your enforcement officers forget to array the primary corporate accused, the courts will gladly throw your entire complaint into the judicial wastepaper basket.

- Because in criminal jurisprudence-unlike GST-you cannot upload vicarious liability without uploading the primary accused.

Revenue wants taxpayers to follow the law strictly and meticulously. The High Court's direction is simple: You first