Anticipatory bail under GST was premature where summons sought evidence and arrest had not crystallised.

Where GST summons are issued only to secure evidence and documents, anticipatory bail based merely on an apprehension of arrest is premature. The statutory scheme distinguishes summons, inquiry, determination of tax liability, and coercive action; arrest, if any, arises only after liability is determined and the required statutory satisfaction is reached. On those facts, the applicant's fear of immediate arrest had not crystallised into a live basis for pre-arrest relief, so the anticipatory bail application was treated as not maintainable at that stage and relief was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application for anticipatory bail was maintainable at the stage when summons had been issued and proceedings for determination of tax liability were pending under the goods and services tax law.

Analysis: The application was founded on the apprehension that the applicant may be arrested in connection with alleged falsification and wrongful availment of input tax credit. The explanation on behalf of the revenue was that summons had been issued only to secure evidence and documents, and that the statutory scheme distinguishes between summons, inquiry, and coercive action. It was stated that arrest, if at all, would arise only after determination of liability and upon the requisite statutory satisfaction. On that basis, the apprehension of immediate arrest was treated as unfounded at that stage.

Conclusion: The application for anticipatory bail was premature and not maintainable at that stage.

Final Conclusion: Relief was declined because the apprehended arrest had not crystallised into a live basis for anticipatory bail in the midst of pending tax proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory summons are issued only for collection of evidence and determination of liability is yet to occur, anticipatory bail based merely on an apprehension of arrest is premature.

---