Gauhati High Court on Pre-Arrest Bail and GST Summons Under Section 70 of CGST Act

Background of the Case

The Gauhati High Court, in Pankaj Kumar Das Vs Union of India And 3 Ors. (AB/1848/2026), decided on 11/08/2026, dealt with the question whether the mere issuance of a summons under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 would justify the grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The assessee, Pankaj Kumar Das, approached the High Court seeking pre-arrest protection on the basis of a summons issued by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion), CGST, Guwahati. The Court confined itself to the issue of maintainability of such an application at this preliminary stage and ultimately dismissed it, holding that a Section 70 summons alone does not establish the necessary apprehension of arrest for invoking Section 482 BNSS.

Facts Leading to the Petition

Issuance of Summons Under Section 70 CGST Act

  • A summon bearing File No. GEXCOM/AE/INV/GST/2404/2026-AE dated 28.07.2026 was issued to the assessee under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017.
  • The summon required him to:
    • Appear before the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion), CGST, Guwahati.
    • Date and time specified: 29.07.2026 at 11 a.m.
    • Venue: Room No. 120, GST Bhawan, Kedar Road, Machkhowa, Guwahati, Assam.
    • Purpose: To subscribe his statement, produce documents and other materials as may be required in connection with an investigation.

Assessee’s Apprehension and Prayer Before the Court

  • The assessee contended that responding to the summons and appearing before the GST authority could result in his immediate arrest.
  • On this basis, he invoked Section 482 BNSS and sought:
    • Pre-arrest bail; and
    • Interim protection so that he could safely appear before the authority without risk of arrest.
  • To support his plea, he relied on two earlier orders passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Gauhati High Court in AB No. 2615/2025:
    • Order dated 06.11.2025, granting interim relief.
    • Order dated 18.03.2026, making the interim relief absolute.
  • He submitted that his case was similar to that of the applicant in AB No. 2615/2025 and urged that a comparable protection be extended to him.

Stand of the Respondents

Objection on Maintainability

Counsel for the respondent authorities – the Union of India and the State authorities – opposed the petition primarily on the ground of maintainability:

  • It was argued that:
    • The assessee had only been issued a summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017.
    • No notice had been issued to him under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023.
  • According to the respondents, in the absence of a Section 35(3) BNSS notice or any concrete step indicating imminent arrest:
    • The legal requirement of “apprehension of arrest” was not satisfied.
    • An application under Section 482 BNSS at this stage was premature.
  • They contended that if at a later stage a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS was issued, the assessee would then be at liberty to seek appropriate relief, including pre-arrest bail.

Consideration by the Gauhati High Court

Examination of Record and Summons

The Court heard:

  • Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, Senior Counsel for the assessee, assisted by Mr. S.