https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767636 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. en-us Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Nov 2025 14:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767636 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. Case-Laws GST Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767636