Pre-arrest notice safeguards apply in CGST prosecutions; inquiry summons cannot replace the mandatory notice before arrest.

The High Court held that general criminal procedure applies to CGST prosecutions unless the special statute provides a contrary process, so its writ and inherent jurisdiction could be invoked to test the legality of arrest and remand. It further held that a summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, issued for inquiry, is distinct from the mandatory pre-arrest notice of appearance under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and cannot substitute for it. Because the petitioner was arrested without the required notice, the arrest was vitiated and bail was granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a petition under the writ jurisdiction and inherent powers of the High Court was maintainable to challenge arrest and remand in proceedings under the CGST Act; (ii) whether a summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 could be treated as compliance with the mandatory notice of appearance under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; and (iii) whether the petitioner's arrest without such notice was vitiated and entitled him to relief.

Issue (i): whether a petition under the writ jurisdiction and inherent powers of the High Court was maintainable to challenge arrest and remand in proceedings under the CGST Act.

Analysis: The applicable criminal procedure provisions were held to govern proceedings under the CGST Act unless the special law provided a contrary procedure. The extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction of the High Court could be invoked where the challenge went to the legality of arrest and continued custody. The absence of any special procedure in the CGST Act for custody by the Magistrate meant that the question of remand and legality of detention could be examined under the general procedural law.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether a summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 could be treated as compliance with the mandatory notice of appearance under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Analysis: A summons under Section 70 is issued for attendance and examination in the course of inquiry, and the statutory setting of that provision is materially different from a notice of appearance issued at the stage of investigation when arrest is contemplated. The two provisions operate in different fields and serve distinct legal purposes. Compliance with a summons issued for inquiry did not satisfy the separate safeguard of prior notice of appearance before arrest.

Conclusion: A summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 cannot be equated with a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Issue (iii): whether the petitioner's arrest without such notice was vitiated and entitled him to relief.

Analysis: For offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years, the statutory safeguard of notice of appearance was treated as mandatory unless arrest was otherwise justified in law. On the facts, the petitioner had been arrested and remained in custody without issuance of the required notice. In view of the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the offence, the period already spent in custody, and the settled approach favouring liberty where statutory safeguards are not followed, continued incarceration was not warranted.

Conclusion: The arrest was held to be vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory notice requirement, and the petitioner was granted bail.

Final Conclusion: The High Court upheld the availability of procedural safeguards in CGST prosecutions, held that inquiry summons did not substitute the statutory notice before arrest, and granted the petitioner release on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the general criminal procedure applies to CGST prosecutions, a summons issued for inquiry under the special tax law does not dispense with the mandatory pre-arrest notice of appearance required by the criminal procedure statute for offences punishable up to seven years.

---