Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar Vs Union of India (Telangana High Court)
Summary: The Telangana High Court, in Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar Vs Union of India, directed the GST authorities to strictly comply with the provisions of Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, if they proposed to arrest the petitioner. The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao disposed of the writ petition on 27 October 2026 after recording the Central Government counsel’s assurance that the authorities would follow the statutory procedure. The dispute concerned the apprehension of coercive action, including arrest, during proceedings initiated by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Hyderabad Zonal Unit.
The petitioner, Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar, CEO and Director of Wegofin Digital Solutions Private Limited, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He contended that the GST authorities were threatening coercive action without complying with the procedure prescribed under Section 69 of the CGST Act. The petitioner specifically sought protection against arrest without service of the relevant order and without being afforded reasonable time to pursue available legal remedies. He requested directions restraining the respondents from taking coercive steps in violation of statutory requirements.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Counsel S. Niranjan Reddy relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Sunil Biyani, (2026) SCC OnLine SC 1544. Counsel submitted that the Supreme Court had explained the procedure governing the exercise of arrest powers by GST officers. It was further argued that Section 69 required service of a copy of the relevant order upon the concerned person, with reasonable time before execution of the arrest order. These submissions formed the basis of the petitioner’s request for judicial protection against allegedly unlawful coercive action.
On behalf of the Union of India, counsel M. P. Kashyap categorically submitted that the petitioner need not apprehend that the authorities would act contrary to Section 69 of the CGST Act. He assured the Court that the CGST authorities would duly adhere to the statutory provisions while conducting proceedings. The High Court took note of this assurance and observed that, in view of the statement made on behalf of the Union of India, there was no reason for the petitioner to continue apprehending non-compliance with the law.
The High Court accordingly disposed of the writ petition in terms of the submissions made by the Central Government counsel. It directed the respondent authorities to ensure that all proceedings initiated under the CGST Act complied with the applicable statutory provisions. The Court specifically directed that, if the authorities intended to arrest the petitioner, Section 69 of the CGST Act must be strictly adhered to. The Court did not prohibit arrest altogether or independently determine whether any proposed arrest was justified on the facts.
The judgment reinforces the requirement that GST authorities exercise their statutory powers in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure. The relief granted was confined to directing compliance with the CGST Act, particularly Section 69, rather than granting blanket immunity from arrest. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed.
Cases Discussed
Union of India v. Sunil Biyani, (2026) SCC OnLine SC 1544 — Supreme Court decision relied upon by the petitioner regarding the procedure governing arrest by GST authorities. The Telangana High Court recorded the reliance placed on this judgment while disposing of the writ petition on the assurance of statutory compliance.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms Sarampally Mrudula, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. P. Kashyap, learned counsel for respondent No.1, both appearing through online, and perused the record.
2. The instant Writ Petition has been filed seeking the following relief:
“…to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the Respondents in conducting actions under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and subjecting the Petitioner to the threat of coercive actions and arrest even without following the procedure under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and without serving a copy of the order on the Petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of principles settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Sunil Biyani (2026) SCC Online SC 1544, and further direct the Respondents not to conduct any actions without following the procedure under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 on the Petitioner with reasonable time thereafter to avail the remedies as also arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional pass such other order(s) that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. Sunil Biyani1 whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down the manner in which an arrest has to be made, if at all the Officers of the GST Department are supposed to exercise their power of arrest. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the provision of Section 69 of the CGST Act requiring service of the copy of the order on the concerned person granting reasonable time before the order of arrest is executed.
4. Sri M. P. Kashyap, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has made a categorical statement that let there not be any apprehension on the mind of the petitioner that the authorities would act contrary to the provisions of Section 69 of the CGST Act. He further submits that in the course of the proceedings being drawn by the CGST authorities, due adherence shall be made to the provisions of Section 69 of the Act.
5. Given the said submissions of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, we see no reason why the petitioner should have any apprehension.
6. At this juncture, we dispose of the Writ Petition in terms of the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, directing the respondents-authorities to ensure that all the proceedings initiated must adhere to the provisions of the CGST Act. If at all the respondents-authorities want the petitioner to be arrested, in that event, the provisions of Section 69 of the Act shall be strictly adhered to.
7. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
Note:
