https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448578 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. en-us Fri, 19 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jan 2026 14:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448578 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. Case-Laws GST Fri, 19 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448578