Order Authorising Arrest Under GST Law Must Be Communicated Before Arrest: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that an order authorising arrest under the GST law must be communicated to the person concerned before the authorities proceed with the arrest.

“To ensure that anyone who is facing the apprehension of arrest is not left in a position of irreparable damage, we have said that Section 69 [CGST Act] order has to be communicated,” a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu held.

The court made the observation while setting aside a Bombay High Court direction that had granted Future Group non-executive director Sunil Biyani one week's protection from arrest if GST authorities subsequently authorized his arrest.

The bench directed that the arrest order be communicated to the concerned person by email before the authorities proceed with the arrest.

“In terms of the rules framed under the CGST Act, every dealer has to provide his email address. So, therefore, you communicate to his email address, and thereafter, you proceed with the arrest,” the court said.

The Supreme Court held that the Bombay High Court's direction granting Biyani one week's protection from arrest was not permissible in law.

A detailed copy of the judgment is awaited.

The case concerns an alleged ₹1,200 crore GST fraud investigation. Biyani had approached the Bombay High Court apprehending arrest after receiving summons from the Union government.

The Bombay High Court had held that his anticipatory bail plea was premature because no arrest order had been passed against him.

Despite this, the High Court directed that Biyani should not be arrested for one week if an arrest order was passed in the future. The one-week period was to begin from the date the order was communicated to him.

The Union government challenged this direction before the Supreme Court.

During the hearing, Justice Datta questioned how the High Court could grant seven days' protection after holding that there was no apprehension of arrest.

“Suppose the High Court comes to the conclusion that the petition is not maintainable because there is no apprehension of arrest. Where does the High Court get the power to say that after the order under Section 69 is passed, for seven days he shall not be arrested?” Justice Datta asked.

Biyani's counsel argued that a person could be summoned and arrested without knowing that an order authorising the arrest had been passed. Counsel submitted that the order should at least be communicated so that the person could pursue appropriate legal remedies.

The Union government also accepted that such an order should be communicated to the affected person.

Additional Solicitor General S. Dwarkanath said the government had no reason to withhold the order.

“We don't get any benefit by not making him know about it. We will certainly give it. As on that date, however, no order under Section 69 had been issued,” the ASG submitted.

The ASG further said that the person concerned would have the right to challenge the order if the Commissioner's reasons for authorising the arrest were legally unsustainable.

“This order has to be communicated. Even if he is arrested, he has a right to challenge the order if the reasons to believe are non-existent,” he said.

On January 23, 2026, the Bombay High Court had directed the Union government to produce the arrest order, if any, passed against Biyani. The court continued its interim protection until the next hearing.

The Union government subsequently filed an affidavit stating that no arrest order had been passed against Biyani.

The High Court consequently held that Biyani could not be arrested in the absence of such an order. It also held that his anticipatory bail application could not be entertained at that stage.