No Secret Arrest Order Under GST - Communication Must Precede Arrest

From Investigation to Arrest - The Statutory Line That Cannot Be Blurred

The CGST Act, 2017 gives the tax administration substantial powers to investigate suspected tax evasion. Section 70 enables the proper officer to summon a person whose attendance is necessary to give evidence or produce documents. Section 69 operates at a materially different stage. It empowers the Commissioner, upon having "reasons to believe" that a person has committed specified offences under Section 132, to authorise an officer to arrest that person. The distinction is fundamental. A summons facilitates investigation; an order under Section 69 represents a statutory decision that the investigation has reached a stage where deprivation of personal liberty may follow.

This distinction is particularly important because receipt of a summons often creates an understandable apprehension that arrest may follow. Yet the law does not treat summons and arrest as interchangeable stages. In RADHIKA AGARWAL Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - 2025 (2) TMI 1162 - Supreme Court (LB) , the Supreme Court clarified that a person summoned under Section 70 does not, merely by reason of the summons, become an accused. At the same time, it upheld the power of arrest under the GST laws, subject to important safeguards governing how that power must be exercised.

Against this background, Union Of India Versus Sunil Biyani. - 2026 (8) TMI 909 - Supreme Court, takes the law an important step further. The Supreme Court was not merely concerned with whether anticipatory bail should have been granted. The deeper question was: if an order under Section 69 is the event which creates a legally recognisable apprehension of arrest, can that order remain undisclosed to the very person whose arrest it authorises?The Court's answer was emphatic. The order must be communicated before arrest; without such communication, the question of arrest would not arise.

The judgment therefore clarifies the sequence contemplated by the statute. Investigation and summons may precede the decision to arrest. The Commissioner's satisfaction under Section 69 converts the possibility of arrest into statutory authorisation. Communication of that decision then enables the affected person to avail themselves of the remedies recognised by law. The judgment thus connects statutory power, procedural fairness and personal liberty within a single legal framework.

Anticipatory Bail Requires a Legally Founded Apprehension of Arrest

The controversy arose during an investigation by the DGGI, Mumbai Zonal Unit, into M/s Alphaneon Techsolutions Pvt. Ltd. and its group entities, concerning allegations of wrongful availment and passing of input tax credit without actual supply, circular invoicing, and non-payment of GST on import of services. The Department issued three summonses under Section 70 to Sunil Biyani. After his anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court failed, he approached the Bombay High Court. During the proceedings, the High Court required the Department to produce any order passed by the Commissioner under Section 69.

The Department's response was significant. By an additional affidavit dated 04.02.2026, it stated categorically that no order under Section 69 had been passed. The Bombay High Court consequently held that, in the absence of such an order, the applicant could not be arrested. It therefore declined to entertain the anticipatory bail application at that stage.

Had the order stopped there, the subsequent controversy might never have arisen. The High Court, however, added a protective direction. It provided that if an order under Section 69 were subsequently passed, the applicant should not be arrested for one week from the date on which that order was intimated to him.

The High Court was therefore attempting to bridge a practical gap. If there was no Section 69 order, anticipatory bail was considered premature. But if the order were passed later and arrest immediately followed, the opportunity to approach the appropriate court for anticipatory bail could be lost. The one-week protection sought to preserve that opportunity.

The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court could not grant one week's prospective protection after declining to entertain the anticipatory bail application. Relying on THE STATE OF ORISSA Versus MADAN GOPAL RUNGTA AND ARJUN LADHA - 1951 (10) TMI 19 - Supreme Court, Hema Mishra Versus State of UP - 2014 (1) TMI 1771 - Supreme Court, and MANGAL RAJENDRA KAMTHE Versus TAHSILDAR, PURANDHAR & ORS. - 2026 (3) TMI 1055 - SC Order, it reiterated that interim relief is ancillary to the principal proceeding and cannot survive independently after that proceeding has been disposed of. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the one-week protection.

The Central Paradox - Anticipatory Bail Cannot Depend Upon a Secret Order

The most important contribution of Sunil Biyani arises from a simple yet compelling legal problem. If no anticipatory bail application is maintainable before a Section 69 order is passed, but the Department is not required to disclose the order after passing it, at what meaningful point can the person seek anticipatory bail?

The respondent highlighted this anomaly before the Supreme Court. Prior to the Section 69 order, the application could be regarded as premature. After the order, if its existence remained unknown until the moment of arrest, the remedy could become practically unavailable. The legal right would exist in theory but could be defeated by the absence of information necessary to exercise it.

The Court's solution was to read communication into the operation of Section 69. This is significant because Section 69 does not expressly state that the Commissioner's authorisation must be communicated before arrest. The requirement emerges from the nature of the decision, its impact upon liberty, the availability of anticipatory bail and the principles of fair administrative action.

This reasoning reflects an important public-law principle: where the law confers a remedy against an adverse exercise of statutory power, the procedure governing that power should not be interpreted in a manner that makes the remedy illusory.

The right to seek anticipatory bail would have little practical value if the event that makes the application maintainable were concealed until arrest. Communication therefore does not create a new substantive defence against investigation. It makes an existing remedy effective.

Anticipatory Bail Protects Liberty Without Obstructing Investigation

The Supreme Court referred to GURBAKSH SINGH SIBBIA Versus STATE OF PUNJAB - 1980 (4) TMI 295 - Supreme Court, and Sushila Aggarwal and others Versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another - 2020 (1) TMI 1193 - Supreme Court, to place the issue within the broader jurisprudence of anticipatory bail. These Constitution Bench decisions recognise anticipatory bail as an important safeguard of personal liberty while preserving the legitimate requirements of investigation. The remedy protects against unjustified arrest; it does not confer immunity from investigation.

This principle explains the importance of communication in Sunil Biyani. The Supreme Court neither created an automatic right to anticipatory bail nor restricted a lawful exercise of power under Section 69. It ensured that once arrest had been authorised, the person concerned had a meaningful opportunity to seek the remedy available in law. Communication therefore provides access to anticipatory bail; it does not guarantee its grant.

Communication of the Section 69 Order Is Different From Communication of Grounds of Arrest

The two requirements operate at different stages. Sunil Biyani concerns communication of the Section 69 order before arrest, so that the person knows that arrest has been authorised and can seek anticipatory bail or other available remedies. Communication of the grounds of arrest is a separate safeguard that operates when arrest is actually effected

Communication Makes "Reasons to Believe" Judicially Meaningful

The Commissioner's "reasons to believe" under Section 69 must rest on relevant material, application of mind and a rational connection with the alleged offence. Radhika Agarwal recognised that GST arrest powers are subject to safeguards against arbitrary exercise, while Sunil Biyani reinforces that the Section 69 order and the underlying satisfaction are amenable to judicial review.

Such review becomes meaningful only when the order is communicated. The Court does not substitute its satisfaction for that of the Commissioner but may examine whether the statutory conditions were met, relevant material existed, or the decision suffered from mala fides or extraneous considerations. Communication therefore does not dilute the power of arrest; it makes its exercise legally accountable.

No Automatic Seven-Day Window - But Communication Must Precede Arrest

The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court's one-week protection and therefore recognised no automatic cooling-off period after a Section 69 order. However, it equally made clear that the Department cannot proceed to arrest without first communicating that order.

Once communicated, the person may seek anticipatory bail or other available remedies, while the Department retains its lawful powers. The ruling thus preserves investigation while ensuring meaningful access to pre-arrest remedies.

Electronic Communication Makes the Safeguard Workable

The Supreme Court recognised that prior communication need not delay investigation. Since Rule 8 of the CGST Rules requires registered persons to provide an email address and mobile number, the Section 69 order may be communicated electronically, in addition to other legally permissible modes.

The emphasis is therefore on effective communication before arrest, rather than any rigid mode of service. From the Department's perspective, however, proper evidence of when and how the order was communicated becomes important, particularly if the legality of the subsequent arrest is challenged.

The Emerging Jurisprudence - Arrest Is Not an Investigative Shortcut

Read together, Radhika Agarwal and Sunil Biyani reinforce that GST arrest is a statutory coercive power governed by strict safeguards. While Radhika Agarwal requires arrest to rest on the statutory "reasons to believe" and not be used casually or coercively, Sunil Biyani adds that the Section 69 order must be communicated before arrest.

The emerging principle is clear: effective enforcement and procedural safeguards are not competing objectives. The power to arrest remains available, but only within the conditions and safeguards prescribed by law.

Concluding Thoughts - Before Liberty Is Taken, the Decision Must Be Known

Sunil Biyani's Case Law's real contribution lies in converting a practical dilemma into a clear legal sequence. A mere summons under Section 70 does not make a person an accused or, by itself, establish the statutory foundation for anticipatory bail. An arrest requires the Commissioner to cross the separate threshold prescribed by Section 69 and to record the requisite "reasons to believe". Once that statutory decision is taken, however, it cannot remain concealed from the person whose liberty it threatens.

The Supreme Court has equally avoided going to the other extreme. Communication does not create an automatic seven-day immunity, nor does it guarantee anticipatory bail. The Bombay High Court's prospective one-week protection was set aside because interim relief could not survive independently after disposal of the principal bail application. The person must pursue the appropriate remedy after communication, and the competent court must decide it according to law.

Read with Radhika Agarwal, the judgment therefore places GST arrest within a disciplined framework: summons is not arrest; suspicion is not "reasons to believe"; an internal decision is not sufficient until the Section 69 order is communicated; communication is not bail; and arrest, if ultimately effected, must independently comply with the safeguards governing grounds and procedure of arrest.

The principle can ultimately be stated in simple terms. The State undoubtedly possesses the power to arrest for serious GST offences, but a power affecting personal liberty cannot operate through an undisclosed decision. Before the arrest follows, the Section 69 order must speak to the person against whom it is directed.

***