Supreme Court on GST Arrest Orders: Section 69 Order Must Be Communicated Before Arrest; No Interim Protection While Dismissing Pre-Arrest Bail [2026 INSC 849]

The Supreme Court held that a High Court or Sessions Court which dismisses an application for pre-arrest bail as not maintainable cannot, at the same time, grant interim protection from arrest. But it also held that the Commissioner's order authorising arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act – which must rest on recorded "reasons to believe" – must be communicated to the person sought to be arrested, including by e-mail or mobile, so that he can seek anticipatory bail or challenge it; without such communication, the question of arrest does not arise (paras 11–22).

Headnote

Goods and Services Tax — Arrest — Pre-arrest bail — Interim protection on dismissal — Communication of order under Section 69 — CGST Act, 2017, Ss. 69, 70, 132; CGST Rules, 2017, R. 8; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 438 (BNSS, 2023, S. 482); Constitution of India, Arts. 21, 226.

While rejecting a summoned person's application for anticipatory bail (as no order under S. 69 had been passed), the High Court directed that he not be arrested for one week from intimation of any S. 69 order — Held, (i) while dismissing a petition for pre-arrest bail as not maintainable, on whatever ground, the High Court or Sessions Court cannot grant protection in the nature of interim relief; the protective direction set aside; (ii) the order under S. 69, preceded by reasons to believe referring to material, is a sine qua non for seeking anticipatory bail, and must therefore be communicated to the person sought to be arrested, including by electronic means using details furnished under R. 8; without such communication the question of arrest does not arise; the order is amenable to judicial review.

(Paras 5–22)

Judgment Intelligence

Key Holdings

• Mere issuance of summons under Section 70 does not make the person an accused; the rejection of pre-arrest bail at the summons stage stood affirmed (paras 5–6).
• Interim relief can only be in aid of the main relief; a court dismissing a pre-arrest bail application as not maintainable cannot grant interim protection (paras 8–11).
• An order under Section 69, preceded by reasons to believe based on material, is a sine qua non for seeking anticipatory bail (paras 15–18).
• The Section 69 order must be communicated to the person sought to be arrested; communication does not obstruct investigation (paras 18, 22).
• The order and the reasons to believe are amenable to judicial review (para 20).
• Communication may be made by e-mail and mobile number furnished at registration under Rule 8, in addition to modes under the BNSS (para 21).

Brief Facts

DGGI, Mumbai Zonal Unit, was investigating M/s Alphaneon Techsolutions Pvt. Ltd. and group entities for alleged wrongful availment and passing of ITC without supply, circular invoicing and non-payment of GST on import of services. The respondent was present during inspection and was issued three summonses under Section 70, but sought adjournments and applied for anticipatory bail, which the Sessions Court rejected on 14.10.2025 (para 4(a)–(b)). Before the Bombay High Court, the Department stated that no Section 69 order had been passed as investigation was at a nascent stage. The High Court rejected anticipatory bail but directed that he not be arrested for one week from intimation of any Section 69 order; the Union of India appealed (paras 2, 4(c)–(d)). The respondent did not challenge the rejection of pre-arrest bail (para 3).

Issues

1. Whether the High Court, while dismissing the pre-arrest bail application, could grant protection from arrest for one week after communication of a Section 69 order (para 7)?
2. Whether the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 69 must be communicated to the person sought to be arrested (para 13)?

Court's Findings

No interim relief on dismissal: Following Madan Gopal Rungta (five Judges) and Hema Mishra, interim relief is only ancillary to the main relief; once the main petition fails, no further protection can be granted. The same applies to pre-arrest bail applications dismissed as not maintainable (paras 8–11).

Communication of the Section 69 order: Accepting the respondent's submission, the Court held that since the Section 69 order is a sine qua non for seeking anticipatory bail, it would be anomalous to hold that it need not be communicated, or be communicated only after arrest. Communication reinforces the right recognised in Sushila Aggarwal and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and enables judicial review of the reasons to believe (paras 16–20).

Final Outcome / Directions (paras 12, 21–25)

• Protection granted by paragraph 6 of the High Court's order set aside.
• Commissioner required to communicate the Section 69 order to the respondent, including electronically; thereafter the respondent may pursue remedies. Without such communication, the question of arrest would not arise.
• Observations confined to the point of law; no finding on facts or merits; investigation to proceed uninfluenced.
• Criminal appeal disposed of.

Legal Principle

A person cannot be arrested under Section 69 of the CGST Act without first being communicated the Commissioner's order authorising arrest; at the same time, courts cannot grant interim protection while dismissing a pre-arrest bail application as not maintainable.

Precedents Relied Upon

• Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India, (2025) 6 SCC 545 (2025 INSC 272) – Followed · Discussed at paras 5, 15: summons does not make a person an accused; reasons to believe must refer to material.
• State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, 1951 SCC 1024 (five Judges) – Followed · Discussed at paras 8–9: interim relief only in aid of main relief.
• Hema Mishra v. State of U.P., (2014) 4 SCC 453 – Followed · Discussed at paras 9–10.
• Mangal Rajendra Kamthe v. Tahsildar, Purandhar, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 297 – Referred to · para 8.
• Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 – Relied upon · Discussed at paras 18–19: right to seek anticipatory bail and personal liberty.

Important Paragraphs of the Judgment

Para 11: "…We hold that while dismissing a petition seeking pre-arrest bail on the ground that the same is not maintainable – whatever be the ground therefor – the high court or the sessions court, as the case may be, cannot extend or grant protection which is in the nature of interim relief that could be granted during the pendency of the application."

Para 18: "We are inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Agarwal. The order under Section 69 of the CGST Act, as held, being a sine qua non to seek anticipatory bail, it would be an anomaly to hold that the order need not be communicated at all, much less, be communicated after the arrest of such person. In any case, communication of the order would not, in any manner, obstruct the investigation ensued by the department…"

Para 22: "In view of the aforesaid, we require the Commissioner to communicate the order under Section 69 of the GST Act to the respondent in the manner indicated in the preceding paragraph, whereafter he may pursue such remedy as he may be advised. We reiterate, without such communication, question of arrest would not arise."

What the Ruling Means: Practical Impact

• Watch your registered e-mail and mobile: The Section 69 order may be communicated electronically to the details furnished at registration.
• Time to seek anticipatory bail: Once the order is communicated, the person can approach the court for anticipatory bail or challenge the reasons to believe.
• No "protection on dismissal": Courts should not grant interim protection while dismissing a pre-arrest bail application as premature.
• Summons still require compliance: A summoned person is not an accused, and must cooperate with the investigation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Must a GST arrest order under Section 69 be communicated before arrest?

Yes. The Supreme Court held that the Commissioner must communicate the Section 69 order to the person sought to be arrested, and without such communication the question of arrest does not arise (paras 18, 22).

Can anticipatory bail be sought before a Section 69 order is passed?

In this case, rejection of pre-arrest bail at the summons stage, when no Section 69 order had been passed, stood affirmed (paras 5–6). Readers should also see Radhika Agarwal (2025 INSC 272) on anticipatory bail on reasonable apprehension.

Can a court grant interim protection while dismissing an anticipatory bail application?

No. While dismissing a pre-arrest bail application as not maintainable, the court cannot grant protection in the nature of interim relief (para 11).

How can the Section 69 order be communicated?

Through e-mail and mobile number furnished under Rule 8 of the CGST Rules, in addition to modes permitted under the BNSS (para 21).

Read more: Supreme Court Reportable GST Judgments · High Court GST Judgments · GST Legal News

Download Judgment: 2026 INSC 849 – Union of India v. Sunil Biyani (official copy on sci.gov.in – search SLP (Crl.) No. 12535 of 2026)

Judgment digest by Legal Tax Guru: a summary of the Court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version. In case of any error or discrepancy, the original judgment prevails – please verify with the official copy. See our Judgment Summary & Editorial Accuracy Policy.