Avneet Sharma Vs Union of India and Another (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Summary: The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Avneet Sharma Vs Union of India and Another, dismissed a petition seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an investigation under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, holding that the application was premature because no order authorising arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act had been passed against the petitioner. The Court held that summons issued under Section 70 for appearance and production of documents do not, by themselves, establish a reasonable or imminent apprehension of arrest. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India Vs Sunil Biyani, 2026 INSC 849, the High Court observed that an order under Section 69, communicated to the person concerned, constitutes the essential foundation for seeking anticipatory bail in the circumstances considered.
The petitioner had approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, following summons dated 25 March 2026 and 9 April 2026 issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer, Central Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Ludhiana. The petitioner apprehended that compliance with the summons could lead to arrest under Section 69. His counsel submitted that the firm was a registered GST dealer engaged in manufacturing and rolling-mill activities, maintained statutory records, purchased raw materials on payment of GST and availed input tax credit in accordance with law. The petitioner expressed willingness to cooperate with the departmental inquiry but sought protection against possible arrest, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Radhika Agarwal Vs Union of India, 2025 (6) SCC 545.
The respondents opposed the application, contending that the summons were issued solely to secure the petitioner’s appearance and production of documents and that no coercive action was contemplated at that stage. The High Court recorded the Department’s categorical assurance that, before any arrest was contemplated, an order under Section 69 would first be passed and communicated to the petitioner, if warranted in accordance with law. Since no such order existed, the Court found that the apprehension of arrest was speculative rather than based on any subsisting or imminent coercive action.
The High Court clarified that anticipatory bail protects against a reasonably founded apprehension of arrest and cannot be granted merely on the possibility of future arrest without the necessary statutory foundation. The petition was dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the GST investigation and without foreclosing remedies that might become available if a legally sustainable apprehension of arrest subsequently arose. All pending ancillary applications were also disposed of.
List of Cases Discussed:
1. Union of India Vs Sunil Biyani (Supreme Court); 2026 INSC 849. Relied upon. The High Court referred to paragraph 18 of the Supreme Court judgment for the proposition that an order under Section 69 of the CGST Act, communicated to the concerned person, is the essential foundation for seeking anticipatory bail in the circumstances under consideration.
2. Radhika Agarwal Vs Union of India (Supreme Court); 2025 (6) SCC 545. Cited by the petitioner in support of protection against arrest during GST proceedings. The High Court considered the prayer but dismissed it as premature because no Section 69 arrest order had been passed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
1. The present petition is preferred under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), being the first such petition filed by the Petitioner, seeking grant of anticipatory bail.
2. The instant petition arises in the context of the impugned summons dated 25.03.2026 (Annexure P-4) and 09.04.2026 (Annexure P-6), issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer, Central Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Ludhiana, Office of the Principal Commissioner, 2nd Floor, AE Branch, GST Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana, under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, directing the Petitioner’s personal appearance before the Respondent Department. The Petitioner apprehends, on reasonable and bona fide grounds, that his appearance pursuant to the impugned summons is likely to culminate in his arrest at the hands of the respondent-Department, in purported exercise of its coercive powers under Section 69 of the Act. It is in these circumstances, and with a view to safeguarding the petitioner’s personal liberty instant petition for grant of anticipatory bail is preferred.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has a bona fide apprehension of arrest in connection with the proceedings arising from the summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It is contended that the petitioner’s firm is a duly registered dealer under Section 22 of the Act and is engaged in the business of manufacturing/rolling mills, with its transactions being duly reflected in the statutory records. The firm purchases raw material upon payment of applicable GST and, subject to fulfilment of the statutory requirements, avails Input Tax Credit in accordance with the scheme of the Act.
3.1. It is further submitted that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the departmental proceedings and comply with all lawful requirements, but apprehends that his personal appearance pursuant to the summons may result in his arrest under Section 69 of the Act. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India, 2025 (6) SCC 545, and prays that appropriate protection against arrest be extended to the petitioner in the interests of personal liberty and a fair investigation.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner’s apprehension of arrest is wholly unfounded and premature. It is contended that the summons have merely been issued for securing the petitioner’s appearance and production of the requisite documents in connection with the departmental inquiry, and no coercive action has been contemplated against him at this stage. In the absence of any tangible or reasonable basis demonstrating an imminent likelihood of arrest, the extraordinary and discretionary remedy of anticipatory bail is stated to be wholly unwarranted. Learned counsel accordingly submits that the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court on the basis of a mere apprehension and, therefore, prays for dismissal of the present petition.
5. Having considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record, this Court finds that the prayer for anticipatory bail is premature. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Sunil Biyani, 2026 INSC 849, wherein, in paragraph No.18, it has been held that an order under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘CGST’ for short) constitutes the sine qua non for seeking anticipatory bail and that such order is required to be communicated to the person concerned.
5.1. In the present case, admittedly, no order under Section 69 of the CGST Act has, till date, been passed against the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the Department, on instructions, has categorically submitted that, before any arrest is contemplated, an order under Section 69 of the Act, if otherwise warranted in accordance with law, shall first be passed and communicated to the petitioner. Thus, at the present stage, the petitioner’s apprehension of arrest rests solely on a speculative premise and is not founded upon any existing or imminent coercive action under Section 69 of the Act.
5.2. Anticipatory bail is a protective remedy against a reasonably founded apprehension of arrest and cannot be invoked on the basis of a mere possibility divorced from any subsisting order authorising such arrest. In the absence of the foundational order contemplated under Section 69 of the CGST Act, the essential jurisdictional premise for consideration of the petitioner’s prayer for pre-arrest protection is presently absent.
5.3. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the departmental proceedings or the allegations under consideration, and without foreclosing any remedy that may become available to the petitioner in accordance with law upon the emergence of a legally sustainable apprehension of arrest, this Court finds no justification, at the present stage, for extending the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
6. By virtue of the final determination of the main cause, all pending interlocutory and ancillary applications stand automatically disposed of. The final adjudication of the core controversy has effectively extinguished the substratum of these pending applications, rendering them infructuous and precluding the need for separate judicial intervention or formal orders.
