Allahabad High Court splits bail in Noida GST fake-firm case

What the Record Shows

The Allahabad High Court rejected the bail applications of Sanjay Dhingra and Mayank Dhingra on 15 October 2024 in the Noida fake-firm goods-and-services-tax case, per the judgment of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan. The order relates to three first information reports registered at Police Station Noida Sector-20, Gautam Buddh Nagar, and records that a chargesheet was submitted on 26 July 2024 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The position of a third accused named alongside them has since changed, which is the point the record now turns on. Kanika Dhingra, whose bail was heard together with theirs in October 2024, was granted bail by the Allahabad High Court on 12 March 2025, per the order of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava. The court recorded that she was not named in the original three FIRs or the initial gang chart and observed that this "speaks volumes of the non-complicity of the applicant," noting also that the Supreme Court had earlier granted her bail in the underlying cases.

So the current position is split: two of the principal accused remain in custody after bail was refused, while the third is on bail with a High Court observation in her favour. All three are accused persons in a pending prosecution; the allegations are untested at trial, and a chargesheet is not a conviction.

How It Worked

The prosecution case, as summarised in the bail orders, is that a syndicate manufactured input tax credit out of firms that existed only on paper. Per the record before the High Court, the operation ran in stages: personal data and SIM cards were collected, that data was uploaded to the GST portal to register firms in other people's names, transactions were routed through an actual firm to claim input tax credit, and the monetary benefit was distributed among those involved.

The scale, as recorded in the October 2024 bail judgment, is roughly 2,600 fake GST registrations against which input tax credit exceeding Rs 40 crore is alleged to have been claimed. That court-record figure sits well below the headline that circulated in press coverage, where police sources estimated the overall revenue loss from the wider racket at about Rs 15,000 crore. That larger number is a police estimate of loss, not a figure assessed or adjudicated by a court, and it has moved between reports; the sum actually quantified in the judgment relied on here is the smaller one.

The procedural chronology, per the record, runs from the three FIRs in mid-2023, through the arrests, to the chargesheet of 26 July 2024. Justice Manju Rani Chauhan's order notes that Sanjay Dhingra was arrested on 30 April 2024 along with Mayank Dhingra and Kanika Dhingra, with mobile phones, tablets, vehicles and cash recovered, per the prosecution. A separate case crime, No. 173 of 2024, invoked the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, built on the three predicate FIRs, and it was in that matter that Kanika Dhingra later secured bail.

Who Lost Money

The party said to be out of pocket is the exchequer, both central and state, since a fake input-tax-credit racket is a fraud on the tax system rather than on a pool of depositors. On the court record, the quantified exposure in these FIRs is input tax credit exceeding Rs 40 crore claimed against roughly 2,600 registrations, per the bail judgment. The wider Rs 15,000 crore figure quoted in some coverage is a police estimate of total revenue loss and is not established in the record examined here.

There is also a second, less-counted category of affected people: those whose personal identifiers were, per the prosecution, harvested and used to float firms in their names without their knowledge. For them the harm is not lost money but the risk of finding registrations and tax liabilities attached to their identity. What has actually been recovered or forfeited will depend on the trial and on any attachment proceedings; at this stage the figures are allegations and estimates, not adjudicated losses.

Where It Stands Now

As of the records reviewed, Sanjay Dhingra and Mayank Dhingra remain in custody after the Allahabad High Court refused their bail on 15 October 2024, while Kanika Dhingra was granted bail on 12 March 2025. No Supreme Court order disturbing the position of the first two was traceable, and the Supreme Court had, per the March 2025 order, already granted Kanika Dhingra bail in the underlying cases. The chargesheet of 26 July 2024 places the matter at the trial stage before the courts at Gautam Buddh Nagar.

The allegations remain untested. A chargesheet contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. The bail rulings themselves make the point in both directions: a refusal of bail is a decision on custody and not a finding of guilt, and the grant of bail with an observation of non-complicity is likewise not an acquittal but a stage in a case that is still to be tried.

What It Means

The case is a textbook illustration of an identity-led input-tax-credit racket, and of why the two questions in any such matter, who did what and how much was lost, are answered in different places. The "how much" that gets reported first is often a police loss estimate, here about Rs 15,000 crore, while the figure a court actually engages with can be far smaller and more specific, here input tax credit of over Rs 40 crore across about 2,600 registrations. Reading the two apart is the difference between a headline and the record.

For readers, the practical takeaway is defensive. Because these schemes run on harvested PAN, Aadhaar and mobile data, individuals can check the GST portal for registrations wrongly obtained in their name and can raise a grievance if they find one, and they should be wary of sharing identity documents or one-time passwords with anyone offering easy registrations or refunds. Oquilia's enforcement archive has followed how these tax-fraud cases move through the system, alongside the parallel Jharkhand-Bengal GST shell-company attachment by the Enforcement Directorate and cross-border matters such as the Delhi High Court's ruling on Sanjay Bhandari's fugitive-offender status. Knowing which stage a case has reached, FIR, chargesheet, bail or trial, is what keeps a reader ahead of the headline.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A chargesheet contains allegations, not findings of guilt. All three named accused are facing a pending prosecution that has not been tried, they are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. The bail rulings decide custody, not the merits of the charges.

What exactly did the Allahabad High Court decide?

Per its orders, the court rejected the bail applications of Sanjay Dhingra and Mayank Dhingra on 15 October 2024, and separately granted bail to Kanika Dhingra on 12 March 2025, recording that she was not named in the original FIRs and that the Supreme Court had earlier granted her bail in the underlying cases.

How much money is involved?

The bail judgment quantifies input tax credit exceeding Rs 40 crore claimed against roughly 2,600 fake GST registrations in these FIRs. A larger figure of about Rs 15,000 crore appeared in press coverage, but that is a police estimate of overall revenue loss, not an amount assessed or adjudicated by a court.

Does a bail rejection mean an accused is guilty?

No. A refusal of bail is a decision about custody pending trial, weighing factors such as the gravity of the allegations and flight risk. It is not a finding on the merits, and the presumption of innocence continues to apply until a court decides the case.

My PAN or Aadhaar may have been misused. What can I do?

Per the prosecution case, identifiers were used to register firms without owners' knowledge. You can log in to the GST portal to check for registrations obtained in your name, raise a grievance or complaint if you find one, and avoid sharing identity documents or one-time passwords with anyone promising quick registrations or refunds.

Where can I read the official record?

The Allahabad High Court's bail orders are published on Indian Kanoon: the 15 October 2024 order rejecting bail, and the 12 March 2025 order granting bail to Kanika Dhingra. Both are linked below.

This report is based on the Allahabad High Court order dated 15 October 2024 rejecting bail and the order dated 12 March 2025 granting bail to Kanika Dhingra, reviewed on 1 August 2026.