GST | Cannot Seek Pre-Arrest Bail At Stage Of Summons, Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea By Tobacco Trader

In a judgment delivered on December 16, 2025, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, deliberated on the interplay between Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Section 193 and Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Delhi High Court made observations on how 'Summons' for the purpose of 'Inquiry' shall be deemed 'Judicial Proceeding'.

Further, it was clarified that Summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act was issued essentially for gathering information and for providing an opportunity to produce documents, etc. In this vein, the Delhi High Court referred to the term 'Inquiry' used in Section 70 when defining Summons and relied on the Supreme Court rationale in case of Armour Security (India). The Delhi High Court following Supreme Court's view in Armour Security on how issuance of summons could not be considered as the initiation of proceedings, added that

“Hence, issuance of summons under Section 70 CGST Act cannot be considered to be initiation of proceedings against the Petitioners.”

Petitioner had a small-scale business for supply 'Bidi' since 2020 in some pockets of East Delhi. It purchased finished stocks from manufacturer of bidi under the 'Udaan' during Financial Years 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25.

Pursuant to a search conducted by the DGGI at two places, one at principal place of business and other at undeclared godown. The DGGI found that firm was not operational at the premise and examination of evidences revealed that Petitioner supplied non-GST paid goods viz. Bidi of Uddan brand. The market value was estimated at more than Rs.50,00,00,000 tobacco (Bidi of Uddan brand) with GST component of Rs. 14 crores calculated at the rate of 28%. The confiscation was formalized under GST Form INS-02.

Thereafter, an application seeking grant of anticipatory bail was filed before the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court which came to be dismissed and therefore, Petitioner filed present Writ Petition before this Court.

Respondent, DGGI sought dismissal of the Writ Petition as well as anticipatory bail application primarily on the ground of non-compliance with Summons as also that till date no documentary evidence / Tax Invoice had been produced by the Petitioner against the seized goods. On maintainability of the Writ Petition, the Respondent submitted the following:

• It was contended that there was a fundamental distinction between a anticipatory bail and a Writ Petition and therefore, protection from arrest through remedy of anticipatory bail by challenging present Summons in Writ Petition was not available to the Petitioner.
• Respondent relied on the proposition of law that a Writ Petition can not be mechanically converted into a remedy for anticipatory bail as outlined by Supreme Court in case of Kumari Hema Misra (2014) 4 SCC 453
• Respondent put forth that returnable date for summons had come to an end
• Respondent relied on Supreme Court rationale in case of Radhika Agarwal regarding non-interference in investigational process under special act while exercising the power of judicial review
• The issuance of summons for the purpose of attendance, to give evidence, to produce document or any other thing during inquiry could not be said to be partaking of character of apprehension of arrest
• Summons was a legal device by virtue of which the investigation/inquiry for violations of provisions of CGST Act, 2017 were inquired into

On validity of Summons, the Delhi High culled out that nature of the Summons issued under Section 70 CGST Act, 2017 indicated that even 'Inquiry' regarding seized goods shall be deemed to be 'Judicial Proceedings' and the Officer was empowered to summon any person, whose attendance he considered necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry in the same manner, as provided in the case of a Civil Court under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

On apprehension of arrest, the Delhi High Court referred to inherent safeguards in Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 and cited a bevy of decisions including GK Trading, Jatin Gupta, Kuppan Gounder P.G. Natarajan.

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court dismisses the Writ Petition as 'premature'.

Case Detail: MD. Aniqul Islam VS. Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Delhi

For Petitioner: Advocate Manisha Gupta

For Respondent: SSC Anurag Ojha with Advocates Dipak Raj, Priyatam, Garima Kumar

Click Here To Read/Download Order