GST officers must Comply with BNSS Procedures during arrest under GST Act despite Revenue Nature of Investigation: Gauhati HC [Read Order]

The Gauhati High Court has reiterated the ruling in the Radhika Agarwal case that the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) officer must comply with the procedures in the BNSS during the arrest under the offences of GST Act, 2017.

While granting the bail application filed by Sameer Malik, Justice Pranjal Das observed that the officers have to follow the provisions of Section 35 or 47 or 48 during the arrest and if there is any failure, then the whole arrest would be considered as bad in law.

“In the larger interest of society, the Revenue Officials should also be continually trained in these procedural matters under criminal law, so that, whenever arrests are genuinely required for the purpose of investigation, they are not defeated on technical grounds” observed the court.

In this matter, the bail applicant sought bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 with regards to the offences committed under Section 135 of the GST. The present case is that the applicant has been involved in getting GST registrations of non-existing firms and issued fake invoices to pass fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) without supply of goods and services. The same was being done for monetary remuneration through non-existent GST registration.

According to the findings of the GST department, there was fraud worth Rs. 8 crores just between June 2025 to October 2025. The prosecution submitted that the applicant and the co-acused fell within the ambit of Section 132 sub-(1) and in terms of Section 132 (5), these offences are cognizable and non-bailable.

The department also contended that the accused was arrested after taking permission from the Commissioner of the Department as required under Section 69 of the Act. Therefore, they are telling that there were no procedural irregularities.

The counsel for the petitioner, Adv. S K Nargis asserted that, summon under Section 70 of the GST Act was also issued which is governed by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Section 35 of the BNSS was also written in the summons. According to the counsel, both cannot be combined together.

The counsel pointed out that, a notice dated 14th November 2025 under Section 35(3) BNSS was issued subsequently where appearance date mentioned as 13th November 2025 at the time of 4.15PM, which is contradictory.

Additionally, the time of arrest mentioned in the notice of 14th November 2025 as 12.10 PM. Therefore, it was submitted that the notice for appearance indicated a time, which is after the petitioner has already been arrested. Therefore the counsel pleaded not to consider the notice as proper notice.

To this issue, the department submitted that it was the date on the notice requiring appearance on 13th is a typographical error. The fact that the arrest occurred before the time of presence specified in the notification under Section 35(3) of BNSS, however, has not been explained, said the department.

The court, with regards to the summons issuance under the BNSS provisions along with Section 70 of GST, observed that as decided in the matter of Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India and Ors by the Supreme Court, “for arrests under the GST law also, the provisions of Cr.P.C would be applicable and therefore, compliance with the procedural requirements at the time of arrest is necessary for arrest by such Revenue Authorities also.”

Additionally, the high court also noted observation of the apex court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014, it was ruled that wherever the provisions of Section 41/41A corresponding to Section 35 of BNSS are applicable, the Investigating Officer arresting the person has to adduce the grounds for which notice is not issued for appearance.

Considering the typological error in the summons, the court granted bail to the accused with multiple conditions including Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety, not abscond, full cooperation with investigation without tampering the evidence and also not to try to influence witnesses.

“Although, the Revenue Officials conducting such investigation under revenue laws are not trained police officers, nevertheless, during such investigation, they are having to comply with such procedural requirements stipulated by criminal procedure and the governing case laws” said the Single bench.

The Gauhati High Court has reiterated the ruling in the Radhika Agarwal case that the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) officer must comply with the procedures in the BNSS during the arrest under the offences of GST Act, 2017.

While granting the bail application filed by Sameer Malik, Justice Pranjal Das observed that the officers have to follow the provisions of Section 35 or 47 or 48 during the arrest and if there is any failure, then the whole arrest would be considered as bad in law.

“In the larger interest of society, the Revenue Officials should also be continually trained in these procedural matters under criminal law, so that, whenever arrests are genuinely required for the purpose of investigation, they are not defeated on technical grounds” observed the court.

In this matter, the bail applicant sought bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 with regards to the offences committed under Section 135 of the GST. The present case is that the applicant has been involved in getting GST registrations of non-existing firms and issued fake invoices to pass fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) without supply of goods and services. The same was being done for monetary remuneration through non-existent GST registration.

According to the findings of the GST department, there was fraud worth Rs. 8 crores just between June 2025 to October 2025. The prosecution submitted that the applicant and the co-acused fell within the ambit of Section 132 sub-(1) and in terms of Section 132 (5), these offences are cognizable and non-bailable.

The department also contended that the accused was arrested after taking permission from the Commissioner of the Department as required under Section 69 of the Act. Therefore, they are telling that there were no procedural irregularities.

The counsel for the petitioner, Adv. S K Nargis asserted that, summon under Section 70 of the GST Act was also issued which is governed by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Section 35 of the BNSS was also written in the summons. According to the counsel, both cannot be combined together.

The counsel pointed out that, a notice dated 14th November 2025 under Section 35(3) BNSS was issued subsequently where appearance date mentioned as 13th November 2025 at the time of 4.15PM, which is contradictory.

Additionally, the time of arrest mentioned in the notice of 14th November 2025 as 12.10 PM. Therefore, it was submitted that the notice for appearance indicated a time, which is after the petitioner has already been arrested. Therefore the counsel pleaded not to consider the notice as proper notice.

To this issue, the department submitted that it was the date on the notice requiring appearance on 13th is a typographical error. The fact that the arrest occurred before the time of presence specified in the notification under Section 35(3) of BNSS, however, has not been explained, said the department.

The court, with regards to the summons issuance under the BNSS provisions along with Section 70 of GST, observed that as decided in the matter of Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India and Ors by the Supreme Court, “for arrests under the GST law also, the provisions of Cr.P.C would be applicable and therefore, compliance with the procedural requirements at the time of arrest is necessary for arrest by such Revenue Authorities also.”

Additionally, the high court also noted observation of the apex court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014, it was ruled that wherever the provisions of Section 41/41A corresponding to Section 35 of BNSS are applicable, the Investigating Officer arresting the person has to adduce the grounds for which notice is not issued for appearance.

Considering the typological error in the summons, the court granted bail to the accused with multiple conditions including Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety, not abscond, full cooperation with investigation without tampering the evidence and also not to try to influence witnesses.

“Although, the Revenue Officials conducting such investigation under revenue laws are not trained police officers, nevertheless, during such investigation, they are having to comply with such procedural requirements stipulated by criminal procedure and the governing case laws” said the Single bench.

The Gauhati High Court has reiterated the ruling in the Radhika Agarwal case that the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) officer must comply with the procedures in the BNSS during the arrest under the offences of GST Act, 2017.

While granting the bail application filed by Sameer Malik, Justice Pranjal Das observed that the officers have to follow the provisions of Section 35 or 47 or 48 during the arrest and if there is any failure, then the whole arrest would be considered as bad in law.

“In the larger interest of society, the Revenue Officials should also be continually trained in these procedural matters under criminal law, so that, whenever arrests are genuinely required for the purpose of investigation, they are not defeated on technical grounds” observed the court.

In this matter, the bail applicant sought bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 with regards to the offences committed under Section 135 of the GST. The present case is that the applicant has been involved in getting GST registrations of non-existing firms and issued fake invoices to pass fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) without supply of goods and services. The same was being done for monetary remuneration through non-existent GST registration.

According to the findings of the GST department, there was fraud worth Rs. 8 crores just between June 2025 to October 2025. The prosecution submitted that the applicant and the co-acused fell within the ambit of Section 132 sub-(1) and in terms of Section 132 (5), these offences are cognizable and non-bailable.

The department also contended that the accused was arrested after taking permission from the Commissioner of the Department as required under Section 69 of the Act. Therefore, they are telling that there were no procedural irregularities.

The counsel for the petitioner, Adv. S K Nargis asserted that, summon under Section 70 of the GST Act was also issued which is governed by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Section 35 of the BNSS was also written in the summons. According to the counsel, both cannot be combined together.

The counsel pointed out that, a notice dated 14th November 2025 under Section 35(3) BNSS was issued subsequently where appearance date mentioned as 13th November 2025 at the time of 4.15PM, which is contradictory.

Additionally, the time of arrest mentioned in the notice of 14th November 2025 as 12.10 PM. Therefore, it was submitted that the notice for appearance indicated a time, which is after the petitioner has already been arrested. Therefore the counsel pleaded not to consider the notice as proper notice.

To this issue, the department submitted that it was the date on the notice requiring appearance on 13th is a typographical error. The fact that the arrest occurred before the time of presence specified in the notification under Section 35(3) of BNSS, however, has not been explained, said the department.

The court, with regards to the summons issuance under the BNSS provisions along with Section 70 of GST, observed that as decided in the matter of Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India and Ors by the Supreme Court, “for arrests under the GST law also, the provisions of Cr.P.C would be applicable and therefore, compliance with the procedural requirements at the time of arrest is necessary for arrest by such Revenue Authorities also.”

Additionally, the high court also noted observation of the apex court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014, it was ruled that wherever the provisions of Section 41/41A corresponding to Section 35 of BNSS are applicable, the Investigating Officer arresting the person has to adduce the grounds for which notice is not issued for appearance.

Considering the typological error in the summons, the court granted bail to the accused with multiple conditions including Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety, not abscond, full cooperation with investigation without tampering the evidence and also not to try to influence witnesses.

“Although, the Revenue Officials conducting such investigation under revenue laws are not trained police officers, nevertheless, during such investigation, they are having to comply with such procedural requirements stipulated by criminal procedure and the governing case laws” said the Single bench.

Accordingly, the bail was granted.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates