Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed a criminal appeal by the Union of India against a protective order of the Bombay High Court. The High Court had rejected the respondent Sunil Biyani's anticipatory bail application under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) as not maintainable because no arrest order under Section 69 had been passed, but nevertheless granted him protection from arrest for one week after any such order. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside that protection. Background: The Directorate General of GST Intelligence was investigating M/s Alphaneon Techsolutions Pvt. Ltd. and group entities for wrongful availment and passing of input tax credit, circular invoicing, and non-payment of GST. The respondent was found present during inspection. Three summons under Section 70 CGST Act were issued, but he sought adjournments and then filed for anticipatory bail. The Sessions Court rejected it on 14 October 2025. He approached the High Court, which initially directed his appearance; his statement was recorded. The Department filed an affidavit stating no Section 69 order had been passed as investigation was at a nascent stage. The High Court dismissed the pre-arrest bail application on 13 February 2026 but granted the one-week protection. Legal issues concerned whether a court can grant interim protection from arrest while dismissing a pre-arrest bail application as not maintainable, and whether an order under Section 69 CGST Act must be communicated to the person sought to be arrested. The appellant Union of India contended that the High Court could not grant such protection once the application was dismissed. The respondent, through senior counsel Mr. Agarwal, argued that until an order under Section 69 recording reasons to believe is passed, there is no apprehension of arrest; only after such an order does the person become an accused open to arrest. However, the respondent did not challenge the rejection of pre-arrest bail. The Court relied on State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta and Hema Mishra v. State of U.P. to hold that interim relief can only be ancillary to main relief and cannot be granted when the main petition is dismissed. Consequently, the protective order was set aside. The Court also reiterated that mere summons under Section 70 CGST Act does not make a person an accused protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Regarding communication of Section 69 order, the Court discussed the prerequisites but the available excerpt ends before a final answer. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the one-week protection, and affirmed the rejection of pre-arrest bail.
Headnote
A) Interim Relief - Ancillary to Main Relief - No Interim Protection After Dismissal of Pre-Arrest Bail - Constitution of India, Article 226; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 438 (by analogy) - The High Court dismissed the respondent's pre-arrest bail application as not maintainable in the absence of an order under Section 69 CGST Act but granted one-week protection from arrest after any such order. The Supreme Court, relying on State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta and Hema Mishra v. State of U.P., held that while dismissing a petition seeking pre-arrest bail on the ground of non-maintainability, the high court or sessions court cannot grant or extend protection in the nature of interim relief. The protective order was set aside (Paras 8-12). B) Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail and Summons - Mere Summons Under Section 70 CGST Act Does Not Make Person Accused - Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Sections 69, 70; Constitution of India, Article 20(3) - The court reiterated the settled position from Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India that a person summoned under Section 70 CGST Act is not per se an accused protected under Article 20(3); only a valid order under Section 69 recording reasons to believe transforms that status. The rejection of the pre-arrest bail application by the High Court was affirmed (Paras 5-6, 15-16). C) GST Law - Power to Arrest - Prerequisites for Order Under Section 69 - Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Section 69 - Section 69(1) empowers the Commissioner to authorise arrest only on recorded reasons to believe, which must refer to material and evidence and evince application of mind, as laid down in Radhika Agarwal. The court also considered whether such order must be communicated to the person sought to be arrested, but the excerpt concludes before final answer (Paras 14-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court could grant protection from arrest for one week after an order under Section 69 CGST Act while dismissing a pre-arrest bail application as not maintainable; and whether an order under Section 69 CGST Act is required to be communicated to the person sought to be arrested.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the protective order granted by the High Court vide paragraph 6 of the impugned order, and affirmed the rejection of the pre-arrest bail application. The court held that while dismissing a pre-arrest bail petition on the ground of non-maintainability, no protection in the nature of interim relief can be granted.
Law Points
- Interim relief can only be ancillary to main relief
- a high court cannot grant protection from arrest after dismissing pre-arrest bail application as not maintainable
- mere summons under Section 70 CGST Act does not make person accused
- order under Section 69 CGST Act must be preceded by reasons to believe and refer to material
- Article 226 cannot be used solely for interim relief
