The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed two anticipatory bail petitions as premature, holding that no order under Section 69 of the CGST Act authorising arrest has been passed or communicated to either petitioner, and that the existence of an investigation, issuance of summons under Section 70, conduct of search proceedings under Section 67, or apprehension that the investigation may ultimately result in arrest cannot by itself substitute the statutory requirement of an order under Section 69. The rulings by Justice Virinder Aggarwal in CRM-M-15056-2026 and CRM-M-17743-2026 (Prayank Gupta and Mahesh Gupta, decided 08.09.2026) directly apply the Supreme Court’s authoritative ruling in Union of India v. Sunil Biyani (2026 INSC 849), which held that the order under Section 69 is the sine qua non for maintaining an application for anticipatory bail, and that such order must be communicated to the person before arrest.
The court clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the allegations, the nature of the alleged ITC availment, the alleged non-cooperation of the petitioners, or the necessity of custodial interrogation. In the event an order under Section 69 is subsequently passed and communicated, the petitioners remain free to seek remedies available in law. The companion case of Avneet Sharma v. Union of India (CRM-M-45412-2016, decided 18.08.2026) was also disposed of on identical reasoning.
- 2026-juristway.com-2775-HC(Punjab & Haryana)-GST; 2776 | High Court of Punjab & Haryana | CRM-M-15056-2026 & 45412-2016 | August–September 2026
