High Court Denies Bail to IRS Officer in ₹70 Lakh GST Bribery Case

New Delhi, March 13, 2026 – The High Court has refused bail to a senior Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer accused of soliciting a ₹70 lakh bribe in connection with a Goods and Services Tax (GST) investigation. The court cited sufficient preliminary evidence linking the officer to the alleged corruption.

Alleged Bribe Demand Following GST Searches

The case arose after CGST authorities conducted searches at the premises of two firms, uncovering undeclared stock and financial documents pointing to potential tax violations. Prosecutors allege that officials demanded ₹1.5 crore to resolve the matter, with ₹70 lakh reportedly paid through intermediaries connected to the accused officer.

Trap Operation and Arrest

A trap operation coordinated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) documented the alleged bribe transaction. During the operation, Superintendent Ajay Sharma of CGST was caught accepting the ₹70 lakh payment. Investigators also conducted a controlled call with the IRS officer, during which prosecutors claim she acknowledged the payment and discussed converting it into gold — a key piece of evidence in the case.

Recorded Conversation Forms Key Evidence

The High Court noted that the call transcript and the circumstances of the trap operation indicate the officer’s knowledge of and involvement in the transaction. While the trial will determine ultimate culpability, the court found the evidence sufficient to justify continued custody.

Bail Plea Rejected Despite Personal Grounds

The officer, who is pregnant, sought bail citing personal circumstances. However, the High Court ruled that the gravity of the alleged corruption outweighed these factors, referencing the Supreme Court judgment in Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, which emphasizes that bail for female accused must still consider the seriousness of the offense and available evidence.

The court also directed the trial court to expedite proceedings, highlighting the judiciary’s commitment to timely resolution of corruption cases involving public officials. The investigation remains ongoing, with financial records and other evidence under examination.