Case Details: Sameer Malik vs. Union of India - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 550 (Gauhati)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Pranjal Das, J.
- Ms S.K. Nargis, Adv. for the Appellant.
- S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was subjected to arrest by the Anti-Evasion Unit in connection with an investigation alleging issuance of fake invoices and wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) through non-existent firms. Prior to such arrest, a notice under section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was issued requiring the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at a specified time on the same day. However, the petitioner was arrested before the scheduled time of appearance, and it was contended that such action was taken without recording any reasons for bypassing the statutory procedure prescribed for securing appearance. The petitioner sought bail on the ground that there was non-compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards, while the investigating officer (IO) admitted that the timing mentioned in the notice was erroneous but failed to justify the premature arrest. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the procedural safeguards embodied under section 35(3) of the BNSS, akin to those under section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were applicable to arrests made in connection with offences under section 69 read with section 132 of the CGST Act. It was observed that in cases where an arrest is effected without ensuring compliance with the notice procedure, the investigating officer is required to record valid reasons for such deviation. The Court noted that since the arrest was effected prior to the time fixed for appearance on the same day, the notice could not be said to have been effectively complied with, thereby rendering the arrest procedurally defective. In the absence of any justification for such deviation, the arrest was held to be infirm in law. Consequently, the petitioner was held entitled to a grant of bail.
List of Cases Referred to
- Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India [2025] 171 taxmann.com 832/95 GSTL 225 (SC) (para 10)
- Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 (para 11).
The post GST Arrest Invalid for Non-Compliance with BNSS Notice | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
