Pankaj Kumar Das vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors.

Held

The Court held that an apprehension of arrest is a prerequisite for filing an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. In this case, the Court found that the apprehension of arrest was not substantiated because the petitioner had only received a summon under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, for the purpose of inquiry, which included subscribing to his statement and tendering documents. The date for appearance had already elapsed. The Court noted that the respondents correctly pointed out that no notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, had been issued. Therefore, the Court concluded that the application was not maintainable at this stage. It was clarified that it would remain open for the applicant to approach the Court again in the event of issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's potential liability under the CGST Act.

Facts

The petitioner, Pankaj Kumar Das, filed an application under Section 482 of the BNSS for pre-arrest bail. He had received a summon dated July 28, 2026, under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, to appear before the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion), CGST, Guwahati on July 29, 2026, to provide a statement and tender documents. The petitioner apprehended immediate arrest upon appearance and sought interim protection. He relied on two previous orders from a Co-ordinate Bench granting similar relief in a related matter. The respondents, GST authorities and the State of Assam, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the application, arguing that only a notice under Section 70 of the CGST Act was issued, not a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, and thus there was no immediate apprehension of arrest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the apprehension of arrest is sufficiently established to maintain an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, when the petitioner has only received a summon under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, for the purpose of inquiry and not a notice of arrest or a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that he apprehended immediate arrest upon appearing before the authority, citing his similarity to a petitioner in a previous case (AB No. 2615/2025) where interim relief was granted and later made absolute. He sought similar protection. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents contended that the application was not maintainable as only a notice under Section 70 of the CGST Act had been issued, and no notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, had been served. They argued that at this stage, there was no actual apprehension of arrest, and the petitioner could approach the court again if a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was issued.