Anticipatory bail in GST matters sustained where later summons ruling was non-retrospective and bail breaches were unproven.

Anticipatory bail under the GST regime was held not to be denied merely because of a later Supreme Court ruling on summons under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, where co-accused had already been arrested and there was a genuine apprehension of arrest. The court also recognised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant pre-arrest protection. On the facts, the respondent was not shown to be the principal actor, had clean antecedents, cooperated with the investigation, and had already given a statement under Section 70 of the Act. Alleged breaches of bail conditions, including passport deposit, joining investigation, and reversal of input tax credit, were treated as unsubstantiated or previously considered, so cancellation was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders granting anticipatory bail and declining cancellation of bail should be interfered with in view of the Supreme Court decision on summons under the GST law, the merits of the alleged GST fraud, and the alleged breach of bail conditions.

Analysis: The anticipatory bail could not be denied merely on the basis of the later Supreme Court decision concerning persons summoned under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, because the co-accused had already been arrested, there was a genuine apprehension of arrest, and the later decision could not operate retrospectively. The Court also held that it could exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant pre-arrest protection. On merits, the respondent was not shown to be the principal actor, had clean antecedents, had cooperated with the investigation, and had given his statement under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The alleged breaches of bail conditions were found to be unsubstantiated or already considered, including the issues relating to non-deposit of passport, alleged non-joining of investigation, and reversal of input tax credit.

Conclusion: The grant of anticipatory bail was sustained and the cancellation request failed; no interference was called for.

---