Fake GST Invoices and PMLA: Section 19 Arrest, Section 45 Bail and the Mohit Deora Ruling
Fake GST Invoices, Section 19 Arrest and the Section 45 Bail Barrier: The Jharkhand High Court’s Mohit Deora Ruling
The Jharkhand High Court’s decision in Mohit Deora v Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement, B.A. No. 8051 of 2025, neutral citation 2025:JHHC:33871, decided on 12 November 2025, examines how a tax-fraud allegation may develop into a money-laundering prosecution. The Court considered whether the arrest complied with Section 19 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002; whether the material disclosed a laundering role distinct from the alleged GST fraud; and whether the accused could satisfy the twin conditions for bail under Section 45.
The Court dismissed the regular-bail application. Its observations were expressly confined to bail and were not findings of guilt. The allegations and defence remain matters for trial.
The alleged invoice network and the PMLA foundation
The Enforcement Case Information Report, ECIR/RNZO/18/2024 dated 23 September 2024, followed three DGGI complaint cases pending before the Economic Offences Court at Jamshedpur. The complaints invoked Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and several provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution case recorded in paragraphs 99–104, a multi-State network allegedly created and controlled 135 shell firms, issued invoices without underlying supplies, and passed ineligible input-tax credit of approximately Rs 750 crore. The ED alleged that needy individuals were recruited, their identity documents and authentication credentials were used to establish entities, and invoices and credits moved through several layers.
GST fraud by itself does not automatically become money-laundering. A PMLA prosecution requires property derived or obtained from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Here, the foundation identified by the Court was the inclusion in the DGGI complaints of Sections 420, 467 and 471 IPC, which appeared in Part A of the PMLA Schedule. The distinction matters because the alleged tax contravention supplies the factual setting, while the scheduled offences and resulting property supply the legal bridge to Sections 2(1)(u) and 3 PMLA.
The case concerns historical allegations under the IPC, so those provisions must not be retrospectively relabelled. For present-day orientation only, IPC Section 420 corresponds in substance to Section 318(4) BNS; IPC Section 467 to Section 338 BNS; IPC Section 468 to Section 336(3) BNS; and IPC Section 471 to Section 340(2) BNS. IPC Sections 406 and 409 correspond in substance to Sections 316(2) and 316(5) BNS respectively.
The alleged role attributed to Mohit Deora
The prosecution did not rest its case solely on kinship with an alleged principal actor. It attributed a financial-handling role to the applicant. Paragraphs 103–110 record allegations that personal and business accounts under his control received substantial credits from entities associated with the alleged network; that funds were routed into property and business assets; and that the applicant continued receiving or using funds after becoming aware of the DGGI action.
The prosecution complaint alleged credits exceeding Rs 10.31 crore across the applicant’s personal and business accounts, cash deposits exceeding Rs 38 lakh, and the use of identified receipts for property acquisition and business capital. These figures were allegations drawn from prosecution material, not adjudicated facts. The High Court considered them sufficient at the bail stage to prevent a finding that there were reasonable grounds for believing the applicant was not guilty.
Section 3 PMLA reaches a person who directly or indirectly attempts to indulge, knowingly assists, knowingly becomes a party to, or is actually involved in a process or activity connected with proceeds of crime. The Court therefore focused on knowledge, control of accounts, receipt and movement of alleged criminal proceeds, acquisition or use of property, and alleged projection of funds as legitimate. Merely being related to another accused would not meet Section 3; a knowing connection with proceeds of crime is required.
The arrest challenge under Section 19
The applicant was arrested in Kolkata on 8 May 2025. The High Court treated three safeguards as central: the authorised officer must possess relevant material; must record in writing reasons to believe that the person is guilty of a PMLA offence; and must inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest. Article 22(1) adds the constitutional guarantee that the arrested person be informed, as soon as may be, of those grounds.
Pankaj Bansal v Union of India, 2023 INSC 866, decided 3 October 2023, requires written grounds of arrest to be furnished as a matter of course. Prabir Purkayastha v State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 INSC 414, applied the protection to a pari materia arrest provision and held that breach renders custody illegal. V. Senthil Balaji v State represented by Deputy Director, 2023 INSC 677, emphasised recorded reasons, communication and remand scrutiny. Arvind Kejriwal v Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 512, explains that furnishing written grounds does not make the authorised officer’s reasons to believe immune from judicial scrutiny. Vihaan Kumar v State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 162, reinforces effective communication under Article 22(1), while recognising written communication as the proper and ideal course in an ordinary police arrest.
On the record before it, the High Court found compliance. Paragraphs 87–98 state that the arrest order, written grounds and reasons-to-believe document carried the applicant’s acknowledgement; that he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Calcutta within 24 hours; and that the transit-remand court considered the material. The arrest challenge therefore failed on the facts found at the bail hearing.
An acknowledgement is evidence of delivery, but the doctrine should not be reduced to obtaining a signature. Courts must still examine whether case-specific written grounds were supplied, whether the authorised officer had relevant material, whether reasons were recorded before arrest, and whether remand scrutiny was meaningful. Arvind Kejriwal makes that distinction particularly important.
Ram Kishor Arora v Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 INSC 1082, construed “as soon as may be” and considered the prospective “henceforth” direction in Pankaj Bansal. Earlier approaches in Moin Akhtar Qureshi v Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12108, and Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal v Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 9938, cannot justify withholding written grounds: Pankaj Bansal expressly held their contrary approach not to be correct law.
Section 45 and the correct level of bail scrutiny
The application invoked Sections 483 and 484 BNSS. Section 483 BNSS is the successor to Section 439 CrPC and contains the special bail powers of the High Court and Court of Session. Section 484 concerns the amount and reduction of a bond. The operative regular-bail power was therefore Section 483 BNSS, subject to Section 45 PMLA.
Where the Public Prosecutor opposes bail, Section 45 requires reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that the accused is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. Section 45(2) makes those restrictions additional to ordinary bail law. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, upheld the post-amendment framework. Gautam Kundu v Directorate of Enforcement, (2015) 16 SCC 1, and Tarun Kumar v Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 INSC 1006, explain the mandatory character of the twin conditions.
The exercise is demanding but is not a mini-trial. Rohit Tandon v Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal Appeal Nos 1878–1879 of 2017, and Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294, require assessment on broad probabilities rather than a meticulous determination of guilt. Nimmagadda Prasad v CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466, likewise distinguishes “reasonable grounds” from proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Satender Kumar Antil v CBI, 2022 INSC 690, and Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 1 SCC 676, discourage unnecessary arrest and provide a general bail framework. They do not erase special statutory conditions. Mohit Deora compared that framework with Gurwinder Singh v State of Punjab, 2024 INSC 92, a UAPA decision illustrating how special-statute restrictions modify ordinary bail analysis. Gurwinder Singh is an analogy, not a PMLA holding.
Article 21 remains controlling. In V. Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 739, the Supreme Court held that stringent bail conditions cannot authorise unreasonably prolonged detention where the trial cannot realistically conclude. Mohit Deora did not extinguish a later Article 21 claim if custody becomes disproportionate to likely trial duration.
Section 50 statements and their limits
The High Court relied on statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA together with banking and transactional material. Rohit Tandon treats Section 50 statements as admissible material. Abhishek Banerjee v Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 668, explains that a Section 50 inquiry is not a police investigation under Chapter XII CrPC and that Sections 50, 65 and 71 PMLA govern the inquiry.
Admissibility does not mean automatic truth or conclusive guilt. Retraction, voluntariness, context, corroboration and the maker’s procedural status may require adjudication. At the bail stage, the Court treated the statements as part of a wider record rather than as the sole foundation for detention.
Section 24, foundational facts and the predicate-offence question
Section 24 PMLA permits a statutory presumption in proceedings relating to proceeds of crime, but the prosecution must first establish foundational facts. The High Court identified three: criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence; property derived or obtained from that activity; and the accused’s connection with a process or activity involving that property.
At paragraphs 138–143, the Court linked facts especially within a person’s knowledge to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, now Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Collector of Customs v D. Bhoormall, (1974) 2 SCC 544, supports drawing an appropriate inference where specially known facts are not explained. That principle does not relieve the prosecution of its primary obligation to establish scheduled criminal activity, proceeds of crime and a factual link to the accused.
Pavana Dibbur v Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 INSC 1029, makes another distinction: a person accused of laundering need not also be named as an accused in the scheduled offence. Nevertheless, the property must originate in criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. In Mohit Deora, the High Court rejected the argument based solely on the applicant not being an accused in the DGGI complaints because the prosecution alleged knowing handling and use of resulting property.
Rana Ayyub v Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) 4 SCC 357, and Vijay Madanlal explain the breadth and continuing character of processes described in Section 3. Restoration of a GST registration or later tax compliance would not, by itself, erase an already completed criminal transaction or cleanse property derived from it. Conversely, an administrative irregularity cannot create proceeds of crime without the required scheduled-offence foundation.
Economic gravity is relevant but not a substitute for the statutory test
The concluding part of Mohit Deora refers to Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439; Nimmagadda Prasad; State of Gujarat v Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364; CBI v Santosh Karnani, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 427; Gautam Kundu; and State of Bihar v Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai, (2017) 13 SCC 751. These decisions emphasise the public consequences, evidentiary complexity and potential witness risks associated with serious economic offences.
Those considerations cannot replace the individualised inquiry demanded by Sections 3, 19 and 45. “Economic offence” is not a self-executing reason for detention. The court must identify the accused’s alleged role, test the arrest record, examine the traceable connection with proceeds of crime, evaluate the defence against the prosecution material, and consider trial delay and Article 21.
Why bail was refused
The decisive findings appear in paragraphs 149–171. The Court considered the alleged money trail through personal and business accounts, alleged use of receipts for property and business assets, Section 50 statements, the applicant’s conduct after becoming aware of the GST investigation, the alleged scale and layered structure of transactions, and the assertion that part of the property remained untraced. It concluded that the applicant had not crossed the first Section 45 threshold and that release could prejudice the continuing inquiry.
The judgment illustrates a three-stage discipline for PMLA bail. First, examine whether arrest was lawful under Section 19 and Article 22(1). Second, identify the scheduled-offence foundation and the property said to constitute proceeds of crime. Third, assess the individual accused’s knowledge and conduct against Section 45 without converting bail into a trial.
Practical implications
For the prosecution, a defensible case requires more than the size of an alleged GST demand. The record should identify scheduled offences, trace alleged proceeds, distinguish generation from laundering, show the accused’s knowing role, preserve the Section 19 decision trail, and furnish case-specific written grounds.
For the defence, the useful audit is equally concrete: compare predicate complaints with the PMLA Schedule; test whether alleged property is actually derived from scheduled criminal activity; reconcile account entries with legitimate records; identify whether Section 50 statements are corroborated; examine the timing and contents of arrest documents; and place trial feasibility and custody duration squarely before the court.
Sources
Jharkhand High Court, Mohit Deora v Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement, B.A. No. 8051 of 2025, 2025:JHHC:33871, decided 12 November 2025: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187202101/
Supreme Court of India, Pankaj Bansal v Union of India, 2023 INSC 866: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/30275/30275_2023_16_1501_47281_Judgement_03-Oct-2023.pdf
Supreme Court of India, Prabir Purkayastha v State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 INSC 414: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/42896/42896_2023_3_1503_53250_Judgement_15-May-2024.pdf
Supreme Court of India, Arvind Kejriwal v Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 512: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/16350/16350_2024_2_1501_53587_Judgement_12-Jul-2024.pdf
Supreme Court of India, Vihaan Kumar v State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 162: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/43293/43293_2024_4_1501_59316_Judgement_07-Feb-2025.pdf
Supreme Court of India, V. Senthil Balaji v State represented by Deputy Director, 2023 INSC 677: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/28176/28176_2023_7_1501_45841_Judgement_07-Aug-2023.pdf
Supreme Court of India, Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v Union of India, judgment dated 27 July 2022: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2014/19062/19062_2014_3_1501_36844_Judgement_27-Jul-2022.pdf
Supreme Court of India, Tarun Kumar v Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 INSC 1006: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/29998/29998_2023_17_1501_48447_Judgement_20-Nov-2023.pdf
Supreme Court of India, Pavana Dibbur v Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 INSC 1029: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/42568/42568_2022_8_1501_48657_Judgement_29-Nov-2023.pdf
Supreme Court of India, Abhishek Banerjee v Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 668: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/8588/8588_2022_13_1501_55472_Judgement_09-Sep-2024.pdf
India Code, Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/indiacode/handle/123456789/2036?view_type=browse
India Code, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/20062/1/a2023-45.pdf
India Code, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/21544/1/the_bharatiya_nagarik_suraksha_sanhita%2C_2023.pdf
India Code, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/indiacode/bitstream/123456789/20063/1/aa202347.pdf
Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. The allegations discussed remain subject to adjudication, and readers should consult the full decisions and current statutory text for any specific matter.
#PMLA #GSTFraud #MoneyLaundering