GST Anticipatory Bail Application Dismissed as Premature: Section 69 Arrest Order is a Mandatory Prerequisite — Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Overview

Case Name: Avneet Sharma Vs Union of India and Another
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Citations of Cases Relied Upon: Union of India Vs Sunil Biyani, 2026 INSC 849; Radhika Agarwal Vs Union of India, 2025 (6) SCC 545

Background of the Dispute

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ruled on a petition filed by an assessee seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an ongoing investigation under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — the provision corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — and marked the petitioner's first such application before the Court.

The genesis of the petition lay in two summons — dated 25 March 2026 and 9 April 2026 — issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer, Central Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Ludhiana, Office of the Principal Commissioner, under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. These summons directed the petitioner to appear personally before the department and produce relevant documents in connection with a departmental inquiry.

The petitioner, apprehending that compliance with the summons might culminate in his arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act, approached the High Court seeking pre-arrest protection to safeguard his personal liberty.

Petitioner's Arguments

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner advanced the following contentions:

  • The petitioner was innocent and harboured a genuine, bona fide apprehension that his appearance in response to the summons could lead to his arrest under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
  • The petitioner's firm was a duly registered GST dealer under Section 22 of the Act, actively engaged in manufacturing and rolling-mill activities.
  • All business transactions of the firm were faithfully recorded in the statutory books and registers.
  • Raw materials were procured after payment of applicable GST, and Input Tax Credit was availed strictly in accordance with the statutory framework and upon satisfaction of the prescribed conditions.
  • The petitioner expressed full willingness to cooperate with the departmental inquiry and to comply with all lawful directions, but sought judicial protection against the risk of arrest arising from his personal appearance before the authorities.
  • Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's ruling in Radhika Agarwal Vs Union of India, 2025 (6) SCC 545, urging the Court to extend appropriate protection to the petitioner in the interest of personal liberty and the conduct of a fair investigation.

Department's Counter-Arguments

Opposing the petition strongly, counsel for the respondent-Department submitted: