The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the mere issuance of summons under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 does not create a legally sustainable apprehension of arrest sufficient to maintain an anticipatory bail application.

The bench of Justice Virinder Aggarwal has observed that an order authorising arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act is a mandatory precondition for seeking pre-arrest protection. Since no such order had been passed and communicated to the petitioners, the High Court dismissed their anticipatory bail petitions as premature.

Buy Now: E-Magazine: Top 100 GST ITC Judgements (2024–25)

The proceedings arose from summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act in connection with an inquiry. The petitioners apprehended that their appearance before the investigating authority could result in their arrest under Section 69 of the Act.

The petitioners submitted that they were innocent and had been unnecessarily subjected to repeated summons and search proceedings. It was argued that the dispute essentially concerned the availment of Input Tax Credit and that no order authorising their arrest had been passed under Section 69.

The petitioners maintained that the summons and the course of the investigation had created a bona fide apprehension that they could be arrested upon appearing before the authorities. They consequently sought protection of their personal liberty through anticipatory bail.

The GST Department opposed the petitions, submitting that its investigation concerned the alleged large-scale and organised availment of ineligible Input Tax Credit. The Department stated that searches had been conducted under Section 67 of the CGST Act and alleged that the petitioners had failed to cooperate with the inquiry and had not appeared in response to the summons issued under Section 70.

It was further submitted that the investigation remained in progress and required the authorities to examine supplier networks, banking transactions, digital evidence and the actual movement of goods.

After considering the submissions, the High Court found that the request for anticipatory bail was premature in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Sunil Biyani, 2026 INSC 849.

The High Court noted that the Supreme Court, after considering its earlier decision in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India, had settled the legal position governing anticipatory bail applications based solely on summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act.

The Supreme Court had held that the mere issuance of a summons does not make the person summoned an accused. An order passed by the Commissioner under Section 69 authorising arrest constitutes the essential foundation for maintaining an anticipatory bail application.

Under Section 69, the Commissioner may authorise an officer to arrest a person where there are reasons to believe that the person has committed an offence specified under Section 132 of the CGST Act. Such reasons must be based on the relevant material and evidence and must reflect an application of mind.

The High Court observed that until the Commissioner records the requisite reasons to believe and passes an order authorising arrest, there is no legally recognised apprehension of arrest merely because the person has been summoned for investigation.

The Court also highlighted the Supreme Court’s direction that an arrest order passed under Section 69 must be communicated to the person sought to be arrested. Such communication allows the affected person to approach the appropriate court and exercise the right to seek anticipatory bail.

Without communicating the arrest order, the person concerned would be placed in an anomalous position: anticipatory bail could not be sought before the order was passed, while the person would also remain unaware of the order and therefore be unable to challenge it.

The High Court further referred to its recent ruling in Avneet Sharma v. Union of India and Another, decided on August 18, 2026. In that case, the petitioner had similarly approached the Court after receiving summons under Section 70 and expressing apprehension of arrest under Section 69.

As no Section 69 arrest order had been passed in that case, the petition was dismissed as premature without examining the merits of the GST Department’s investigation.

Applying these principles to the petitions before it, the High Court noted that the material on record did not disclose the existence of any order under Section 69 authorising the arrest of either petitioner. No such order had been communicated to them.

The Court held that the existence of a GST investigation, issuance of summons under Section 70, searches conducted under Section 67 or an apprehension that the inquiry might eventually lead to arrest could not substitute the statutory requirement of an arrest order under Section 69.

At the present stage, the petitioners’ apprehension of arrest was based on a contingency that might or might not arise, the Court said. In the absence of the foundational order contemplated under Section 69, their requests for anticipatory bail could not be entertained.

The High Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations against the petitioners. It also left open all questions concerning the alleged availment of ineligible Input Tax Credit, the petitioners’ alleged non-cooperation and the necessity of custodial interrogation.

The Court further clarified that if the Commissioner subsequently passes and communicates an order under Section 69 to either petitioner, the concerned person would be free to pursue the remedies available under law, including seeking anticipatory bail.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Restore GST Registration Subject to Payment of Outstanding Dues Within 21 Days: Gauhati High Court