Written Approval with Recorded Reasons by Competent Authority Mandatory for Arrest under CGST Act: Delhi HC [Read Order]
The Court observed that since no such written approval had been sought, the anticipatory bail plea was premature. The issue of jurisdiction raised by the Department was noted but not decided.
![Written Approval with Recorded Reasons by Competent Authority Mandatory for Arrest under CGST Act: Delhi HC [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/08/28/2081390-cgst-act-arrest-taxscan.webp "Written Approval with Recorded Reasons by Competent Authority Mandatory for Arrest under CGST Act: Delhi HC [Read Order]")
The High Court of Delhi, dismissed an anticipatory bail application as premature, ruling that written approval with recorded reasons by the competent authority is mandatory for arrest under the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act.
Azad Malik,petitioner-assessee,filed an application seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a summon issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI).
The matter arose from an ongoing investigation involving M/s Eco Fly E-Waste Recycling Private Limited, where he was the Director. He had received summons dated 30.06.2025 and 09.07.2025 during the inquiry and claimed that they were unwarranted and intended to harass him, which created a reasonable apprehension of arrest and prompted him to approach the Court.
Practical Case Studies in Forensic Accounting & Corporate Fraud Investigation - Click Here
The petitioner counsel stated that in Vinay Kant Ameta v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence & Anr. (W.P. (Crl.) No. 34/2024), the Supreme Court, vide order dated 25.01.2024, had granted interim protection against arrest on the condition that the petitioner would cooperate with the investigation.
It was submitted that the petitioner had appeared before the authorities in February 2024, recorded a detailed statement, and submitted all required documents. The counsel argued that the fresh summons had no new legal basis, the apprehension of arrest arose from their issuance, and custodial interrogation was not needed. Reliance was also placed on Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India & Ors. (2025).
The Department Counsel opposed the bail plea, stating that there was no real or immediate apprehension of arrest. It was argued that the summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act were part of a routine investigation against M/s Eco Fly E-Waste Recycling Private Limited and that arrest required written approval from the competent authority, which had not been obtained.
The counsel further contended that the application was not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, as the investigation was being handled by the DGGI Meerut Zonal Unit.
Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma heard the arguments from both sides and examined the records. It noted that Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, corresponding to Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, granted discretionary power to protect an applicant from arrest if there was a valid “reason to believe” that arrest was likely.
3000 Illustrations, Case Studies & Examples for Ind-AS & IFRS, Click Here
However, it observed that a reasonable apprehension of arrest depended on the facts of each case and that mere suspicion or fear was not sufficient, as held in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab(1980).
The Court recorded the respondent’s submission that an arrest under the CGST Act required written approval from the competent authority, based on reason to believe and no such approval had been sought in the present case. Accepting this contention, the Court held that the anticipatory bail application was premature and could not be allowed.
The bench also noted that the respondent had raised the issue of jurisdiction but clarified that it was not dealt with in this order since the application had already been dismissed as premature.
Accordingly the application was disposed of.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
