Avneet Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA And Another
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
CRM-M-45412-2016 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (107)
CRM-M-45412-2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision:18.08.2026 Avneet Sharma … Petitioner Versus Union of India and Another ... Respondents -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Lavish Setia, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.1-UOI. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab for respondent No.2. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL
, J . (Oral)
The present petition is preferred under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), being the first such petition filed by the Petitioner, seeking grant of anticipatory bail.
The instant petition arises in the context of the impugned summons dated 25.03.2026 (Annexure P-4) and 09.04.2026 (Annexure P- 6), issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer, Central Goods and Services GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.19 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-45412-2016 (O&M) Tax Commissionerate, Ludhiana, Office of the Principal Commissioner, 2nd Floor, AE Branch, GST Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana, under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, directing the Petitioner's personal appearance before the Respondent Department. The Petitioner apprehends, on reasonable and bona fide grounds, that his appearance pursuant to the impugned summons is likely to culminate in his arrest at the hands of the respondent-Department, in purported exercise of its coercive powers under Section 69 of the Act. It is in these circumstances, and with a view to safeguarding the petitioner's personal liberty instant petition for grant of anticipatory bail is preferred.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has a bona fide apprehension of arrest in connection with the proceedings arising from the summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It is contended that the petitioner’s firm is a duly registered dealer under Section 22 of the Act and is engaged in the business of manufacturing/rolling mills, with its transactions being duly reflected in the statutory records. The firm purchases raw material upon payment of applicable GST and, subject to fulfilment of the statutory requirements, avails Input Tax Credit in accordance with the scheme of the Act.
It is further submitted that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the departmental proceedings and comply with all lawful requirements, but apprehends that his personal appearance pursuant to the summons may result in his arrest under Section 69 of the Act. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.19 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-45412-2016 (O&M) Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India, 2025 (6) SCC 545, and prays that appropriate protection against arrest be extended to the petitioner in the interests of personal liberty and a fair investigation.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner’s apprehension of arrest is wholly unfounded and premature. It is contended that the summons have merely been issued for securing the petitioner’s appearance and production of the requisite documents in connection with the departmental inquiry, and no coercive action has been contemplated against him at this stage. In the absence of any tangible or reasonable basis demonstrating an imminent likelihood of arrest, the extraordinary and discretionary remedy of anticipatory bail is stated to be wholly unwarranted. Learned counsel accordingly submits that the petitioner cannot invoke the juri iction of this Court on the basis of a mere apprehension and, therefore, prays for dismissal of the present petition.
Having considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record, this Court finds that the prayer for anticipatory bail is premature. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Sunil Biyani, 2026 INSC 849, wherein, in paragraph No.18, it has been held that an order under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘CGST’ for short) constitutes the sine qua non for seeking anticipatory bail and that such order is required to be communicated to the person concerned. GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.19 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-45412-2016 (O&M) 5. 1. In the present case, admittedly, no order under Section 69 of the CGST Act has, till date, been passed against the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the Department, on instructions, has categorically submitted that, before any arrest is contemplated, an order under Section 69 of the Act, if otherwise warranted in accordance with law, shall first be passed and communicated to the petitioner. Thus, at the present stage, the petitioner’s apprehension of arrest rests solely on a speculative premise and is not founded upon any existing or imminent coercive action under Section 69 of the Act.
Anticipatory bail is a protective remedy against a reasonably founded apprehension of arrest and cannot be invoked on the basis of a mere possibility divorced from any subsisting order authorising such arrest. In the absence of the foundational order contemplated under Section 69 of the CGST Act, the essential juri ictional premise for consideration of the petitioner’s prayer for pre-arrest protection is presently absent.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the departmental proceedings or the allegations under consideration, and without foreclosing any remedy that may become available to the petitioner in accordance with law upon the emergence of a legally sustainable apprehension of arrest, this Court finds no justification, at the present stage, for extending the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
By virtue of the final determination of the main cause, all pending interlocutory and ancillary applications stand automatically disposed of. The final adjudication of the core controversy has effectively GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.19 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-45412-2016 (O&M) extinguished the substratum of these pending applications, rendering them infructuous and precluding the need for separate judicial intervention or formal orders.
( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 18.08.2026
JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.19 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.