The Karnataka High Court dismissed the GST Department’s plea seeking the cancellation of anticipatory bail. The Court reached this decision after considering the Department’s counsel’s argument that the accused could not be arrested without an order under Section 69 of the CGST Act and prior notification of that order.
Additionally, the accused had failed to comply with the directive to appear before the officials. The petition was filed by the Superintendent of Central Tax, Headquarters Anti-Evasion, and sought the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Venkatasubbaiah C and Guramma C (the respondents). HC granted anticipatory bail on August 12, 2026.
The counsel for the department claimed that the respondents had not followed the norms laid down while granting anticipatory bail. Specifically, the petitioner failed to appear before the officials on August 20, 2026, despite this being a requirement under Condition No. 1 of the earlier bail order. On these grounds, the department seeks cancellation of bail.
The court directed an application submitted by the respondents in the previous anticipatory bail proceedings. It seeks to extend the time to adhered with the condition No. 1. From an order passed on the same date, the application was dismissed.
The Bench Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty said that, “Without an order passed by the Commissioner under Section 69 of the Central Goods & Sales Tax Act, 2017, and without communicating the said order to the respondents herein, they cannot be arrested in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA VS SUNIL BIYANI – 2026 SCC OnLine 1544.”
Important: MP HC Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Journalist Charged with Blackmailing GST Officer
While deciding whether the anticipatory bail should now be cancelled, the court considered the earlier order and the stance taken by the department’s counsel.
The Court said that, “In view of the aforesaid order and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner herein while opposing the application filed by the respondents in Crl.P.No.9023/2026 wherein they had sought for extension of time to comply condition no.1 imposed by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2026 in Crl.P.No.9023/2026, I am of the opinion that even this petition is liable to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed.”
The court denied the petition of the GST Department seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents.
| Case Title | Superintendent of Central Tax HQRS Anti Evasion Vs Venkatasubbaiah C |
| Case No. | CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13696 OF 2026 |
| Counsel For Appellant | Sri Madhu N Rao |
| Counsel For Respondent | Sri Shreehari Kutsa |
| Karnataka High Court | Read Order |
