https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783914 The dominant issue was whether the arrest in a GST fraud investigation was legally infirm for non-compliance with s. 35(3) BNSS. The HC found the notice required appearance at 4:15 PM on the relevant date (the date being a conceded clerical error), but the arrest memo showed arrest at 11:45 AM the same day, meaning the accused was arrested before the time fixed for compliance. Treating this as absence of effective compliance with the statutory notice requirement, the HC held the arrest defective under settled law; consequently, the second bail application was allowed and the accused was granted bail. en-us Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Dec 2025 07:51:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783914 The dominant issue was whether the arrest in a GST fraud investigation was legally infirm for non-compliance with s. 35(3) BNSS. The HC found the notice required appearance at 4:15 PM on the relevant date (the date being a conceded clerical error), but the arrest memo showed arrest at 11:45 AM the same day, meaning the accused was arrested before the time fixed for compliance. Treating this as absence of effective compliance with the statutory notice requirement, the HC held the arrest defective under settled law; consequently, the second bail application was allowed and the accused was granted bail. Case-Laws GST Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783914