Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable at the stage when summons are issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and no action under Section 69 of that Act has been taken.
Analysis: The petitioner was only summoned for evidence and production of documents under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The legal position applied was that where a person is only summoned and the power of arrest under Section 69 of the Act has not been invoked, anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not available. Protection against pre-trial arrest in such a situation lies in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Conclusion: The petition for anticipatory bail was not entertainable at the summons stage and was disposed of, leaving the petitioner at liberty to approach the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was held unavailable in proceedings arising merely from summons under the GST law, and the proper remedy was treated as recourse to writ jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: A person summoned under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, before invocation of arrest powers under Section 69, cannot seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.