Supreme Court sets aside one-week arrest protection in GST case

The case concerns an appeal by the Union of India against a High Court order that granted the respondent protection from arrest for one week after the communication of a Section 69 order under the CGST Act, while simultaneously rejecting his application for pre-arrest bail. The Supreme Court examined whether such interim protection could be granted when the main bail application was dismissed as not maintainable.

Who it concerns: Appellant: Union of India; Respondent: Sunil Biyani; Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta.

What the court decided

• The Court set aside the protection from arrest granted by the High Court in paragraph 6 of the impugned order.
• The Court held that a High Court or Sessions Court cannot grant interim protection against arrest when dismissing a pre-arrest bail application on the ground that it is not maintainable.
• The Court affirmed the High Court's rejection of the respondent's pre-arrest bail application, noting that mere issuance of a summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act does not make the person an accused.
• The Court addressed the subsidiary question of whether a Section 69 order must be communicated to the person sought to be arrested, noting that the order must be preceded by 'reasons to believe' and that the person becomes an accused open to arrest only once such an order is passed.

Also in the document

• The Court cited the principle from State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta that interim relief can only be ancillary to the main relief and cannot be granted if the main petition is dismissed.
• The Court noted that the respondent had not challenged the High Court's rejection of his pre-arrest bail application, only the protective order granted alongside it.