Arrest Vitiated for Non-Communication of Section 69(1) Order Before Arrest and Breach of Seven-Day Notice Undertaking — P&H HC Applies SC’s Sunil Biyani, Holds Section 70 Summons Cannot Substitute Prior Notice of Arrest

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held the arrest of a GST-registered person illegal and vitiated ab initio on two independent grounds: first, the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, incorporating the requisite ‘reasons to believe’, was never communicated to the petitioner before his arrest, in breach of the Supreme Court’s mandate in Union of India v. Sunil Biyani (2026 INSC 849); and second, the Department violated its own undertaking recorded before the Sessions Court to afford seven working days’ prior notice before effecting arrest, holding that a summons under Section 70 (requiring attendance for giving evidence or producing documents) operates in a distinct statutory field from the power to arrest under Section 69 and cannot be equated with the promised notice of arrest. The ruling by Justice Virinder Aggarwal in CRWP 11313/2026 (Mohit Bansal, decided 28.09.2026) is the first detailed application of Sunil Biyani’s mandatory pre-arrest communication requirement.

On the first ground, the court held that the arrest memo (Annexure P-5) merely recited that the Commissioner had reasons to believe the petitioner committed offences under Section 132(1)(a) to (d), but neither the actual Section 69(1) order, nor the reasons to believe, nor the material and evidence underlying the Commissioner’s satisfaction was ever communicated to the petitioner. A recital in an arrest memo cannot substitute for the underlying order. On the second ground, the court held that Section 70 summons served on 18.03.2026 and 22.04.2026 did not expressly convey that arrest was being contemplated or had become necessary, and the petitioner’s non-cooperation with the inquiry did not constitute forfeiture of the specific judicial assurance. On the Article 22(2) question (whether arrest commenced at 6:15 AM during the search or at 11:30 PM as formally recorded), the court held on the facts that the petitioner’s liberty was not restrained before 11:30 PM and that his own bail application had stated the same. The petitioner was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.

- 2026-juristway.com-2720-HC(Punjab & Haryana)-GST  |  High Court of Punjab & Haryana  |  CRWP 11313/2026  |  28.09.2026