Superintendent of Central Tax Vs Venkatasubbaiah C (Karnataka High Court)
Summary: The Superintendent of Central Tax, Hqrs Anti Evasion, Bengaluru East Commissionerate, petitioned the Karnataka High Court under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to cancel anticipatory bail granted to Venkat Subbaiah C and another respondent on 12 August 2026 in Criminal Petition No. 9023 of 2026. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents had failed to comply with the bail order: they had not appeared before the petitioner authorities on 20 August 2026 as required by condition no. 1.
The Court referred to an order made the same day dismissing the respondents’ application, IA-1/2026, for more time to comply with that condition. In those proceedings, counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the respondents could not be arrested without an order passed by the Commissioner under Section 69 of the Central Goods & Sales Tax Act, 2017, and without that order being communicated to them. The submission relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India Vs Sunil Biyani.
In view of that order and counsel’s submission opposing the extension application, the High Court held that the petition to cancel anticipatory bail was also liable to be dismissed. It dismissed the petition.
Cases Discussed
- Union of India Vs Sunil Biyani — 2026 SCC OnLine 1544.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
1. This petition under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023, is filed with a prayer to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents herein by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2026 passed in Crl.P.No.9023/2026.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the respondents have not complied the orders passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.9023/2026 and they had not appeared before the petitioner-authorities on 20.08.2026 in compliance of condition no.1 imposed by this Court in Crl.P.No.9023/2026 vide order dated 12.08.2026. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
3. This Court vide even dated order, has dismissed IA-1/2026 filed by the respondents herein in Crl.P.No.9023/2026 seeking extension of time for the purpose of complying condition no.1 imposed by this Court in Crl.P.No.9023/2026, on the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner herein in the said case that without an order passed by the Commissioner under Section 69 of the Central Goods & Sales Tax Act, 2017, and without communicating the said order to the respondents herein, they cannot be arrested in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA VS SUNIL BIYANI – 2026 SCC OnLine 1544.
4. In view of the aforesaid order and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner herein while opposing the application filed by the respondents in Crl.P.No.9023/2026 wherein they had sought for extension of time to comply condition no.1 imposed by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2026 in Crl.P.No.9023/2026, I am of the opinion that even this petition is liable to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed.
