https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751669 A person summoned under Section 69(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 cannot seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; the proper remedy for pre-arrest protection lies in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Because the respondent invoked anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court instead of approaching the High Court under Article 226, the grant of bail was contrary to the settled legal position. The anticipatory bail application was therefore not maintainable, and the bail granted by the Sessions Court was cancelled. en-us Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jan 2026 14:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751669 A person summoned under Section 69(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 cannot seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; the proper remedy for pre-arrest protection lies in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Because the respondent invoked anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court instead of approaching the High Court under Article 226, the grant of bail was contrary to the settled legal position. The anticipatory bail application was therefore not maintainable, and the bail granted by the Sessions Court was cancelled. Case-Laws GST Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751669