Sunil Biyani vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The applicant, Sunil Biyani, filed an Anticipatory Bail Application before the Bombay High Court apprehending arrest following a summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court, on January 23, 2026, directed the respondent, Union of India, to produce the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017. The respondent filed an additional affidavit stating that no order under Section 69 had been passed. The applicant was summoned under Section 70, but the respondent confirmed no Section 69 order was in place.
Held
The Court held that in the absence of an order passed by the Commissioner under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the applicant cannot be arrested. The reasoning was based on the respondent's own admission that no such order had been passed. Consequently, the Court found that the Anticipatory Bail Application could not be entertained at that stage. However, considering the facts and circumstances, the Court granted interim protection, stating that the applicant shall not be arrested for a period of one week from the date of intimation of any order passed under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017, to the applicant. The application was disposed of in these terms.
Key Issues
1. Whether the applicant can be arrested in the absence of an order passed by the Commissioner under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, when a summons has been issued under Section 70 of the same Act? Petitioner's Contention: The applicant argued that arrest could not be made without an order under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017, as indicated by the Court's previous order. The applicant relied on the fact that the respondent had not produced any such order. Respondent's Contention: The respondent (Union of India) stated in their affidavit that no order under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017, had been passed in the matter, and therefore, there was no such order to produce. The respondent did not explicitly argue on the legality of arrest without a Section 69 order but confirmed its absence.
Sections Cited
Section 70, Section 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 911-ABA 3001-25.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURI ICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3001 OF 2025 Sunil Biyani … Applicant Vs. Union of India … Respondent ----- Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud a/w Abhishek Salian, Mayuresh Ingale for the Applicant. Mr. J. B. Mishra a/w Sangeeta Yadav, Rupesh Dubey, Umesh Gupta for the Respondent-UOI. ----- CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 13TH FEBRUARY 2026 P.C. :
The Applicant has filed this Anticipatory Bail Application apprehending his arrest by Respondent, in view of summons issued to him under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 at Page No.25 of the present Application.
On 23rd January 2026, this Court passed the following order: “P.C. :
At the request of learned Special PP, list on 05.02.2026 at 300 p.m.
The learned Special PP, on the next date, shall produce the order passed by the concerned Commissioner in terms of Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in the present matter.
Ad-interim order to continue till the next date.” Mugdha 1 of 2 MUGDHA MANOJ PARANJAPE MUGDHA MANOJ PARANJAPE Date: 2026.02.13 19:20:53 +0530
2 911-ABA 3001-25.doc
In terms of the said order, the Respondent-UOI has filed an Additional Affidavit dated 04th February 2026. Paragraph No.2 of the said Affidavit reads thus:
“2. As on the date hereof, no order under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 has been passed in this matter, accordingly, there is no such order to produce today.”
In absence of an order under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Applicant can not be arrested.
In that view of the matter, at this stage, the present Anticipatory Bail Application can not be entertained.
However considering the facts and circumstances, the present Applicant shall not be arrested for a period of one week, if the order under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is passed, from the date of intimation of such order to the Applicant.
The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) Mugdha 2 of 2
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.