During his four years on the Supreme Court bench, Justice Sundresh has developed a reputation for insisting that investigative agencies prove “reason-to-believe” and follow CrPC/BNSS procedure even while granting them wide berth to crack down on serious economic offences.
The arc of his tax jurisprudence can be traced through five clusters of cases: conditional bail in a ₹869-crore GST fraud; a stern warning against on-the-spot coercive recoveries during search-and-seizure; the February 2025 constitution-bench rulings on arrest powers and anticipatory bail; supervisory directions in the Punjab illicit-liquor matter that signal readiness to monitor stalled tax probes; and, finally, two direct-tax decisions—one on education cess, the other on transfer pricing—that reveal his textual fidelity when construing fiscal statutes.
Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here
In Vinay Kant Ameta v. Union of India, arising out of an alleged ₹869-crore GST evasion, the Court released the accused only after he deposited ₹100 crore up-front and undertook to deposit a further ₹100 crore, describing the condition as the “least restrictive” way to protect the exchequer while honouring personal liberty. Justice Sundresh, writing with Justice S. K. Kaul, noted that economic offenders “run a parallel economy” and therefore justified an exceptional bail bond, but he also emphasised that prolonged pre-trial detention would be disproportionate once the revenue was partially secured. (Taxscan | Simplifying Tax Laws)
Fast-forward to May 2024, when a three-judge bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna and including Justice Sundresh reacted to data showing large “voluntary” payments wrung out of taxpayers during GST raids. The Court told the Union that the CGST Act gives no power to demand money on the spot, that any demand must follow sections 73-74, and that “persuasion, not coercion” should underpin recovery drives.(Taxscan | Simplifying Tax Laws) This ruling is now routinely cited in writ petitions to quash post-search recovery forms and illustrates Justice Sundresh’s insistence that statutory safeguards be “meaningfully enforced, not left ornamental.”
Two connected February 2025 judgments then supplied a doctrinal anchor. First, in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India (279 tagged petitions challenging Customs and GST arrests), the Court held that the safeguards in the CrPC—and, prospectively, the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita—apply in toto to tax arrests, that anticipatory bail is available even before an FIR, and that arrest must rest on “credible material” rather than mere suspicion. The very next day, the same bench upheld the constitutionality of sections 69 and 70 CGST (arrest and summons) and the corresponding Customs provisions, reasoning that Parliament’s plenary power under Article 246-A necessarily carries incidental penal powers. Read together, the two rulings confirm the judge’s signature stance: rigorous constitutional vetting of procedure coupled with deference to the legislature on substantive competence.
Justice Sundresh’s readiness to police investigative delay emerged in Tarsem Jodhan v. State of Punjab, a PIL complaining that dozens of illicit-liquor FIRs had languished for years. Observing that “no serious efforts seem to have been made,” the bench demanded monthly status reports, implicitly warning state authorities that fiscal offences—excise evasion in this instance—cannot be parked in cold storage. For GSTAT aspirants, the takeaway is that the Tribunal’s own docket control will be judged against similar benchmarks of expedition.
Although the GSTAT will handle indirect tax, interview panels often probe familiarity with broader tax jurisprudence. In Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals v. JCIT (December 2022), Justice Sundresh concurred that the retrospective Finance Act 2022 amendment barring deduction of education cess under section 40(a)(ii) “admits of no doubt,” demonstrating a strict textual approach even where the amendment disadvantages taxpayers. (Taxscan | Simplifying Tax Laws) A year later, in the SAP Labs batch, he joined Justice M. R. Shah in holding that High Courts may re-examine ITAT determinations of Arm’s Length Price when findings are perverse or rule-book errors taint the analysis, rejecting the notion that every ALP decision is a factual fortress immune to section 260A appeals. Both opinions reinforce that while the judge respects parliamentary intent, he will not hesitate to deploy judicial review when lower-level fact-finding strays from statutory commands.
When the Board asks how you would adjudicate GST appeals, anchor your answer in the Sundresh-style equilibrium: acknowledge Parliament’s decision to arm tax officers with arrest and search powers, but insist that those powers be exercised procedurally—with recorded “reason-to-believe,” voluntary statements free from coercion, and transparent bail or bond conditions calibrated to the alleged loss. Cite Ameta to show prudence in economic-offence bail, use the May 2024 coercion ruling to argue against on-the-spot payments, invoke Radhika Agarwal for arrest safeguards, and recall Tarsem Jodhan whenever delay or lax investigation looms. If pressed on direct-tax analogies, mention Chambal Fertilizers for retrospective amendments and SAP Labs for perverse-finding review.
Framing answers this way tells the panel you have internalised Justice Sundresh’s remarkable balance of robust enforcement with constitutional due-process, exactly the mindset a future GSTAT member must display.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
