Authority: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Order Date: 12 August 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Union of India (appellant) vs Sunil Biyani (respondent).
- Background: The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Mumbai investigated M/s Alphaneon Techsolutions Pvt. Ltd. and its group for alleged wrongful availing of Input Tax Credit, circular invoicing, and non‑payment of GST on import of services. Sunil Biyani was present during the inspection and acknowledged it.
- The respondent received three summonses under Section 70 of the CGST Act, sought adjournments, and applied for anticipatory bail in the Sessions Court, Mumbai, which was rejected on 14 October 2025. He then approached the Bombay High Court for pre‑arrest bail.
- The High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application but granted a one‑week protection from arrest, conditional on an order under Section 69 of the CGST Act being passed.
- The Union of India appealed the High Court’s protective order.
Legal Reasoning
- Citing Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India, the Court held that a summons under Section 70 does not make the person an accused; therefore, pre‑arrest bail cannot be entertained absent a Section 69 order.
- The Court reiterated the principle from State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta that interim relief cannot be granted when the main petition is dismissed for lack of maintainability.
- It affirmed that once a writ petition is dismissed, any interim relief, including protection from arrest, must also lapse.
- Addressing whether a Section 69 order must be communicated to the person sought to be arrested, the Court concluded that communication is necessary to enable the accused to seek anticipatory bail and to satisfy principles of natural justice.
Directions
- The one‑week protection from arrest granted by the High Court is set aside.
- The Commissioner under Section 69 of the CGST Act is directed to communicate the order to the respondent, preferably via electronic means as permitted by Rule 8 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
- After communication, the respondent may pursue anticipatory bail or other appropriate remedies.
- The criminal appeal is disposed of on these terms; the pending investigation shall continue uninfluenced by these observations.
Final Outcome
- The High Court’s interim protection is vacated; Sunil Biyani no longer enjoys pre‑arrest bail protection pending a Section 69 order.
- The Commissioner must communicate any Section 69 order to the accused before any arrest can be effected.
Topics: Pre‑Arrest Bail, GST Enforcement, Judicial Interim Relief