The Case
UNION OF INDIA VS SUNIL BIYANI
Case No.: Crl.A. No.-003795-003795 – 2026
Decided on: 08/12/2026
Diary No.: 34138/2026 ·
Supreme Court of India
The Legal Issue Before the Supreme Court
Whether the High Court could have granted protection from arrest for one week from communication of an order under Section 69 of the CGST Act while dismissing the application for pre-arrest bail. The Court also addressed whether an order passed by the Commissioner under Section 69 of the CGST Act is required to be communicated to the person sought to be arrested.
Facts of the Case
The Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit, was investigating M/s Alphaneon Techsolutions Pvt. Ltd. and its group entities for allegedly wrongfully availing and passing Input Tax Credit without actual supply of goods or services, circular invoicing, and non-payment of GST on import of services. During inspection of the registered premises, the respondent, Sunil Biyani, was found present and acknowledged the inspection. The Department issued three summonses under Section 70 of the CGST Act to the respondent, who sought adjournments and then filed an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, Mumbai, which was rejected on 14th October, 2025. The respondent approached the High Court seeking pre-arrest bail; the Department filed an affidavit averring that no order under Section 69 of the CGST Act had been passed as the investigation was still at a nascent stage. The High Court rejected the application, noting that in the absence of an order under Section 69 there could be no apprehension of arrest, but nonetheless granted protection from arrest for a week from the date of intimation of an order passed under Section 69.
Summary of the Decision
The Court held that while dismissing a petition seeking pre-arrest bail on the ground that it is not maintainable, the High Court or the Sessions Court cannot extend or grant protection in the nature of interim relief that could be granted during the pendency of the application; the rejection of the respondent's pre-arrest bail application, though not under challenge, stands affirmed. It set aside the protection granted to the respondent vide paragraph 6 of the impugned order. On the subsidiary question, the Court held that the order under Section 69 of the CGST Act, being a sine qua non to seek anticipatory bail, must be communicated to the person sought to be arrested, and such communication may be made through electronic means in addition to the modes permitted under the BNSS and all other permissible modes. The Court reiterated that without such communication, the question of arrest would not arise, and required the Commissioner to communicate the order under Section 69 of the GST Act to the respondent, whereafter he may pursue such remedy as he may be advised. The appeal was disposed of on these terms, and the Court recorded that the observations were confined to the point of law canvassed, did not constitute a finding on facts or merits, and the pending investigation shall proceed uninfluenced.
This digest is AI-generated for quick reference only and is not legal advice. Always verify against the full judgment.