The Supreme Court has held that it is a settled position of law that even in cases where a petition seeking quashing of FIR or charge-sheet is dismissed, no interim relief can be granted by the high courts. In a similar vein, while dismissing a petition seeking pre-arrest bail on the ground that the same is not maintainable, the high court or the sessions court cannot extend or grant protection which is in the nature of interim relief that could be granted during the pendency of the application.
The Court further held that the order under Section 69 of the CGST Act, being a sine qua non to seek anticipatory bail, must be communicated to the accused before he is arrested, and such communication is mandatory by extension of the principles of natural justice and fairness in administrative action. Without such communication, the question of arrest would not arise.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu observed that it is an admitted position, in view of the decision in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India [(2025) 6 SCC 545], that mere issuance of summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act does not make the person summoned an accused protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The Court noted that the respondent had merely been summoned when he unsuccessfully applied for pre-arrest bail, and therefore rejection of such application by the High Court, though not under challenge, stands affirmed.
The Court then examined the central question of whether the High Court could have granted relief of protection from arrest for one week while dismissing the application. Referring to the 5-judge Bench decision in State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [1951 SCC 1024] and the subsequent decision in Hema Mishra v. State of U.P. [(2014) 4 SCC 453], the Court reiterated the established principle that an interim relief can only be in aid of and ancillary to the main relief, and a petition under Article 226 cannot be used for the sole purpose of issuing interim relief when the court is of the considered opinion that the petition itself is not maintainable.
The Court further observed that this principle applies equally to applications seeking pre-arrest bail, and that while dismissing a petition seeking pre-arrest bail on the ground that the same is not maintainable, the high court or sessions court cannot extend or grant protection which is in the nature of interim relief that could be granted during the pendency of the application.
Also read Bombay HC Restrains Dabur from Using ‘NEEM’ As Trade Mark on Toothpaste Packaging
On the subsidiary question regarding communication of the Section 69 order, the Court accepted the contention of the respondent’s counsel that an order under Section 69 of the CGST Act is a sine qua non for seeking anticipatory bail, and it would be an anomaly to hold that such order need not be communicated at all, much less communicated after the arrest. The Court held that though not mandated by the statute, by extension of the principles of natural justice and fairness in administrative action, the requirement of communication of the order passed under Section 69 to the accused before he is arrested must be read into the statute.
The Court further noted that Rule 8 of the CGST Rules mandates that a person seeking registration must provide an email address and mobile number, and therefore the order may be communicated through electronic means in addition to other permissible modes under the BNSS. The Court relied on the principles laid down in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565] and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2020) 5 SCC 1] to fortify the accused’s right to challenge the order and the “reasons to believe” recorded by the Commissioner.
Briefly, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Mumbai Zonal Unit, was investigating M/s Alphaneon Techsolutions Pvt Ltd. and its group entities for allegedly wrongfully availing and passing Input Tax Credit (ITC) without actual supply of goods or services, circular invoicing, and non-payment of GST on import of services. During inspection of the registered premises, the respondent, Sunil Biyani, was found present and acknowledged the inspection. The Department issued three summonses under Section 70 of the CGST Act to the respondent.
Instead of appearing, the respondent sought adjournments and thereafter filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Mumbai, which was rejected on 14th October, 2025. The respondent subsequently approached the Bombay High Court seeking pre-arrest bail. During the hearing, the Department filed an affidavit stating that no order under Section 69 of the CGST Act had been passed as the investigation was still at a nascent stage. The High Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail on the ground that in the absence of an order under Section 69, there could be no apprehension of arrest, but nonetheless granted protection from arrest for a period of one week from the date of intimation of any order passed under Section 69 of the CGST Act.
