Pankaj Kumar Das Vs Union of India And 3 Ors. (Gauhati High Court)
Summary:The Gauhati High Court considered an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) filed by Pankaj Kumar Das seeking pre-arrest bail. The application arose after the applicant received a summons dated 28.07.2026, bearing File No. GEXCOM/AE/INV/GST/2404/2026-AE, issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion), CGST, Guwahati. The summons directed him to appear on 29.07.2026 at 11 a.m. at Room No. 120, GST Bhawan, Kedar Road, Machkhowa, Guwahati, Assam, for subscribing to a statement and tendering documents, among other matters.
The applicant apprehended that he might be arrested upon appearing before the GST authority and therefore approached the High Court seeking interim protection to enable him to appear. His counsel relied upon orders dated 06.11.2025 and 18.03.2026 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in AB No. 2615/2025, contending that similar protection should be extended to him.
The respondents opposed the maintainability of the application. It was submitted that the applicant had only been issued a summons and had not received any notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023. According to the respondents, there was therefore no present apprehension of arrest. They contended that if such notice were subsequently issued, the applicant could approach the Court again for protection.
The High Court examined the application and the summons dated 28.07.2026. It noted that the applicant had been directed to appear before the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion), CGST, Guwahati on 29.07.2026, but that date had already elapsed. The Court further noted that the summons required the applicant to subscribe to statements and tender documents and other material and had been issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017.
The Court held that apprehension of arrest is a pre-condition for filing an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. On the facts before it, the Court found that the apprehension of arrest was not there since only notice under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 had been issued to the applicant. The Court further observed that, in the event of issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, it would remain open for the applicant to approach the Court.
Accordingly, the Gauhati High Court held that the application was not maintainable and dismissed it. The decision was therefore confined to the maintainability of the pre-arrest bail application at the stage presented, on the basis that the Section 70 CGST summons did not, by itself, establish the requisite apprehension of arrest.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Abdullah, learned counsel for the accused. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Senior Counsel-cum-standing counsel, GST, assisted by Mr. K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3; and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 2 and 4.
2. This application, under Section 482, BNSS is preferred by applicant, namely, Pankaj Kumar Das, for granting pre-arrest bail.
3. Mr. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had received one summon, vide file No. GEXCOM/AE/INV/GST/2404/2026-AE, dated 28.07.2026, under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (‘CGST’, for short) Act, 2017, to appear before the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion), CGST, Guwahati on 29.07.2026, at 11 a.m., at room No. 120, GST Bhawan, Kedar Road, Machkhowa, Guwahati, Assam, to subscribe statement, to tender documents, others etc. Mr. Bhuyan also submits that the applicant herein apprehends that in the event of his appearance before the said authority, he may be arrested immediately, and as such, he has approached this Court by filing the present application to grant him interim protection for enabling him to appear before the said authority. Mr. Bhuyan by referring to two orders, dated 06.11.2025 and 18.03.2026, passed by a Co¬ordinate Bench of this Court, in AB No. 2615/2025, whereby interim relief was granted to the applicant of the said application, vide order dated 06.11.2025 and the said order was made absolute, vide order dated 18.03.2026. Mr. Bhuyan further submits that a similar protection may be extended to the present applicant also, as he is also similarly situated like the applicant of AB. No. 2615/2025.
4. Per contra, Mr. Keyal, learned Senior Counsel-cum-standing counsel, GST, for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Mr. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 have raised the question of maintainability of this application. According to them, only the notice was issued to the applicant and no notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 was issued to him, and in the event of issuance of such notice, the applicant can approach this Court again seeking protection and at this stage, there is no apprehension of arrest, and therefore, they have contended to dismiss the petition.
5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned summon dated 28.07.2026.
6. It appears that the petitioner was directed to appear before the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion), CGST, Guwahati on 29.07.2026, at 11 a.m., but the date has already elapsed and in the said notice, he was asked to subscribe to his statements, to tender documents, others etc. only and the said notice was issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017.
7. It is well settled that apprehension of arrest is a pre-condition for filing a application, under Section 482, BNSS, 2023. In the instant case, after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, this Court finds that the apprehension of arrest is not there since only notice under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 has been issued to the applicant. And in the event of issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, it would remain open for the applicant to approach this Court.
8. And in that view of the matter, this Court finds this application not maintainable and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
