Mumbai, Nov 27, 2025: In a landmark verdict underscoring the judiciary’s stringent stance against corruption, a former Assistant Commissioner of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) has been sentenced to five years in jail for his role in a high-profile bribery case. The court also imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on the convict, signaling that acts of corruption by public servants will not be tolerated.

The verdict was delivered on Thursday by Special Judge A.V. Kharkar, who presided over Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) cases in Mumbai. The court found Ashok Nayak, the former Assistant Commissioner of GST, guilty under multiple provisions, including offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) and criminal conspiracy as per the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case dates back to May 2017, when a businessman running a bar and restaurant in Mumbai filed a complaint against Nayak. According to the complainant, Nayak demanded an exorbitant bribe of ₹12 crore to settle a matter pending before the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Furthermore, Nayak allegedly instructed the businessman to pay 25 to 30 per cent of the amount within a day or two, warning of imminent arrest if the bribe was not promptly delivered.

The complaint also stated that Nayak claimed to have connections with a “senior bureaucrat” in the Prime Minister’s Office, and promised that he could leverage this influence to resolve the ED case in the businessman’s favor. After initial negotiations, the demanded sum was reportedly reduced from ₹12 crore to ₹10 crore, but the coercive nature of the demand remained intact.

Upon receiving the complaint, the ACB acted swiftly and set up a trap operation. Nayak was apprehended while accepting the first installment of ₹1.25 crore, marking a crucial breakthrough in the investigation. The evidence gathered during the sting operation played a pivotal role in securing his conviction.

In his judgment, Special Judge Kharkar observed that the evidence unequivocally demonstrated that Nayak demanded illegal gratification for inducing an unknown public servant and willingly accepted the bribe. “The accused was a public servant and expected to devote his sincere attention toward his duties and perform them honestly,” the judge noted. “His act does not deserve any leniency and reflects a serious abuse of power.”

Despite the severity of the offence, the court considered certain mitigating factors while deciding the exact nature of punishment. Nayak’s age and cardiac ailment were taken into account, leading the court to award him simple imprisonment rather than rigorous imprisonment. Nevertheless, the sentence of five years’ incarceration, coupled with a fine, sends a strong message about the legal consequences of corruption, particularly for high-ranking government officials.

The case highlights the persistent challenge of curbing corruption in India’s bureaucratic system, especially in sectors involving financial oversight. The Enforcement Directorate and other regulatory bodies often deal with high-stakes matters, and attempts to manipulate these processes through bribery undermine both the rule of law and public trust.

Legal experts hailed the judgment as a deterrent against malpractices within government departments. Advocate Meera Desai, who has handled anti-corruption cases in Mumbai, said, “This verdict reinforces that no public servant, irrespective of rank or position, is above the law. It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining accountability and integrity in the civil services.”

For the businessman involved, the outcome of the case offers a sense of justice after years of uncertainty. The trap operation and subsequent prosecution have demonstrated that the ACB and other investigative agencies are capable of taking decisive action against individuals attempting to exploit their official positions for personal gain.

While the case is specific to the GST department, its implications resonate across the public administration spectrum. It serves as a cautionary tale for bureaucrats and emphasizes the importance of transparency and ethical conduct in public office. Analysts suggest that continued vigilance and rigorous enforcement are essential to deter potential offenders and strengthen India’s anti-corruption framework.

Ashok Nayak’s conviction, therefore, stands as both a legal milestone and a moral precedent. It reiterates the principle that public office is a trust, and any deviation from the duties entrusted to officials will invite strict penal action.

The court’s order also imposes a fine of ₹1 lakh, which, while symbolic relative to the bribe amount, reinforces the judiciary’s stance that corruption carries both financial and custodial consequences.

As India continues to modernize its regulatory mechanisms and strengthen anti-corruption laws, cases such as this one serve as a reminder that vigilance, reporting, and swift legal action are critical to preserving the integrity of the system. The Anti-Corruption Bureau’s proactive measures in laying the trap and gathering irrefutable evidence have been widely commended by legal circles.

In conclusion, the five-year jail term handed to Ashok Nayak exemplifies the judiciary’s uncompromising position on corruption and sets a benchmark for future cases involving public officials. It emphasizes that legal accountability, ethical governance, and public trust are inseparable, and any attempt to subvert these principles will be met with decisive action.