TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
(i) Whether the arrest under the GST investigation was vitiated for non-effective compliance with the statutory notice requirement under Section 35(3) BNSS, in light of the admitted errors in the notice and the arrest having occurred before the time fixed for appearance.
(ii) Whether such defective compliance with Section 35(3) BNSS, as applied to arrests by GST/revenue authorities, rendered the arrest infirm/defective so as to justify grant of bail on that technical ground.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue (i): Validity/effectiveness of compliance with Section 35(3) BNSS notice vis-à-vis timing of arrest
Legal framework: The Court considered that summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act are issued in the manner applicable to a civil court procedure, but for arrest by GST/revenue authorities, procedural requirements corresponding to criminal procedure (including Section 35(3) BNSS) must be complied with. The Court applied the settled position that such procedural compliance at the time of arrest is mandatory and that violation may make the arrest infirm and support grant of bail.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the case diary, the notice purportedly issued under Section 35(3) BNSS, and the arrest memo. The Investigating Officer conceded that the date in the notice mentioning appearance on 13.11.2025 was a typographical error. However, even treating the appearance date as 14.11.2025, the notice required appearance at 4:15 p.m., whereas the arrest memo recorded arrest on 14.11.2025 at 12:10 p.m. The Court found there was no explanation for arrest being earlier than the time fixed for appearance under the notice, meaning the accused was arrested before he could comply with the appearance requirement.
Conclusion: Because the accused was arrested before the time fixed for appearance, the Court held there was no effective compliance with Section 35(3) BNSS.
Issue (ii): Consequence of defective Section 35(3) BNSS compliance-whether arrest became infirm and bail should be granted
Legal framework: The Court applied the settled law that when notice/appearance safeguards corresponding to Section 35 BNSS apply, their proper observance is necessary; failure can render the arrest defective/infirm, and the Court must scrutinize compliance while considering custody and remand. The Court also proceeded on the basis that these procedural safeguards apply to arrests effected by revenue authorities under GST.
Interpretation and reasoning: Having found that the notice required appearance at a time later than the arrest, the Court held that the statutory safeguard was reduced to a faulty/mechanical formality and could not be treated as compliance. On that basis, the arrest was held to be infirm/defective "in terms of the settled law." The Court treated this defect as a sufficient technical ground to allow the subsequent bail application without entering into merits of the allegations.
Conclusion: The Court granted bail on technical grounds due to the defective arrest, subject to conditions including non-absconding, cooperation with investigation, and non-tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses; breach would make bail liable to cancellation.
TaxTMI 
