Waseem Akram Khan & Anr. v. State of Karnataka through Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement)
VALIDATED FULL-TEXT JUDGMENTPDF provenance: The local PDF was generated by Indian Kanoon from the complete validated judgment text. It is searchable and text-matched, but is not an official court-issued PDF. The official court portal is listed separately; no judgment-specific official deep link is asserted.
Two-minute summary
A section 69 authorisation is a prerequisite to the apprehended GST arrest. In light of the State's statement that no arrest would occur without such an order and communication, the apprehension was premature; liberty to seek bail later was preserved.
Material facts
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CASE ID NO.AD2905260142636/2026-2027 DATED 15.05.2026 AND PURSUANT TO THE SUMMONS DATED 21.05.2026 AND 22.05.2026 ISSUED AGAINST THEM IN CONNECTION WITH THE VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF CGST ACT 2017 OR KGST ACT 2017. Petitioners are before this Court under Section 482 of BNSS 2023, seeking anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest in case ID No.AD 2905260142636/2026-2027 pursuant to the enquiry notice dated 21.05.2026 and 22.05.2026, received by them from the respondent- authority. Learned State Public Prosecutor submits that only summons has been issued for enquiry in exercise of the powers under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'the Act') and no order has been passed under Section 69 of the Act by the Commissioner authorizing the competent officers to arrest the petitioners.
Issues
- Whether GST enquiry summons under section 70, without a section 69 arrest authorisation, created a present basis for anticipatory bail.
Court reasoning
Petitioners are before this Court under Section 482 of BNSS 2023, seeking anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest in case ID No.AD 2905260142636/2026-2027 pursuant to the enquiry notice dated 21.05.2026 and 22.05.2026, received by them from the respondent- authority. Consequently, an order under HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46077 CNR: KAHC010435212026 Section 69 of the CGST Act would be a sine qua non to maintain an application seeking such bail. This Court, in the case of Abdul Majid Vs.
Ratio / controlling principle
A section 69 authorisation is a prerequisite to the apprehended GST arrest. In light of the State's statement that no arrest would occur without such an order and communication, the apprehension was premature; liberty to seek bail later was preserved.
Operative order
that without an order passed under Section in Criminal Petition No. 9260/2026 and other connected cases disposed of on 05.08.2026, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46077 CNR: KAHC010435212026 69 of the Act, and without communicating the same to the petitioners, they will not be arrested, I am of the opinion that the apprehension expressed, at this stage, is misconceived. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Criminal petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh bail application if need arises.
Statutes and provisions
- Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
- Section 482
- Section 70
- Section 69
- Section 132
Scope limits
- The decision is confined to the issues decided on the retained record; verify the complete judgment and subsequent history before reliance.
Completeness and review
- Source text
- Complete judgment text, validated against the public source
- PDF status
- Generated from validated complete text (not an official court PDF)
- Text-to-PDF match
- Passed
- PDF pages
- 5
- Source words
- 1,487
- Later history
- Not verified — check the official court record for later history before reliance (as of 20 Sep 2026)
- PDF SHA-256
ed99bc11e400344b9a65a076f224a973c0156c3694869679652bfcab080b31d7
Read the complete searchable judgment text
Mr. Waseem Akram Khan vs The State By on 27 August, 2026
Mr. Waseem Akram Khan vs The State By on 27 August, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46077
CRL.P No. 9273 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010435212026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9273 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1. MR. WASEEM AKRAM KHAN,
S/O. RAHAMATHULLA KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC: PROPRIETOR OF
M/S. MEHRAN STEEL INDUSTRIES,
NO.3/2, KUMBALAGUDU,
KENGERI, KAMBIPURA VILLAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 060.
2. MR. MEHRAN PASHA,
S/O. ASLAM PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
Digitally OCC: PERSON-IN-CHARGE OF
signed by
NANDINI M S M/S. MEHRAN STEEL INDUSTRIES,
Location: NO.3/2, KUMBALAGUDU,
HIGH COURT
OF KENGERI, KAMBIPURA VILLAGE,
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 060.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA M.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE BY
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/150016515/ 1
Mr. Waseem Akram Khan vs The State By on 27 August, 2026
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERCIAL TAXES (ENFORCEMENT),
SOUTH ZONE, ROOM NO.204,
-2-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46077
CRL.P No. 9273 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010435212026
2ND FLOOR, B BLOCK,
V.T.K.-2 BUILDING,
RAJENDRANAGARA,
KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 047.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.JAGADEESHA B.N., S.P.P. A/W
SRI.RANGASWAMY R., HCGP)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 482
BNSS) PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CASE ID
NO.AD2905260142636/2026-2027 DATED 15.05.2026 AND
PURSUANT TO THE SUMMONS DATED 21.05.2026 AND
22.05.2026 ISSUED AGAINST THEM IN CONNECTION WITH
THE VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF CGST ACT 2017 OR KGST
ACT 2017.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
-3-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46077
CRL.P No. 9273 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010435212026
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/150016515/ 2
Mr. Waseem Akram Khan vs The State By on 27 August, 2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Petitioners are before this Court under Section 482 of BNSS 2023, seeking anticipatory bail
apprehending their arrest in case ID No.AD 2905260142636/2026-2027 pursuant to the enquiry
notice dated 21.05.2026 and 22.05.2026, received by them from the respondent- authority.
2. Learned State Public Prosecutor submits that only summons has been issued for enquiry in
exercise of the powers under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short,
'the Act') and no order has been passed under Section 69 of the Act by the Commissioner
authorizing the competent officers to arrest the petitioners. Placing reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Sunil Biyani1, he submits that, at this stage,
the apprehension expressed by the petitioners is 2026 SCC Online SC 1544 HC-KAR NC:
2026:KHC:46077 CNR: KAHC010435212026 mis-conceived and only after a communication is
issued to the petitioners pursuant to the order passed under Section 69 of the Act, a pre-arrest bail is
maintainable. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on paragraph Nos.15 to 18 of the
aforesaid judgment, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
"15. Sub-section (1) of Section 69 grants the Commissioner the power to authorise
any officer to arrest a person. Such order must, as prescribed, be preceded by
"reasons to believe". Such reasons in turn, must refer to the material and evidence
underlying such opinion and evince application of mind. These are, among others,
the stipulations laid down in Radhika Agarwal (supra).
16. According to Mr. Agarwal, learned senior counsel for the respondent, what
necessarily follows is that until and unless an order under Section 69 of the CGST Act
is passed by the Commissioner recording the "reasons to believe" that an offence
under Section 132 of the CGST Act has been committed, no alarm is activated and
there cannot be any apprehension of arrest by the person summoned. In other words,
once the Commissioner concludes that there are "reasons to believe" that any offence
of the nature stated in Section 69 has been committed warranting an arrest and an
order to that effect is passed, the alarm is activated and the person (alleged to be the
offender, whose arrest is authorised) becomes an accused who is open to be arrested
and, thus, acquiring the right to seek pre-arrest bail. Consequently, an order under
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46077 CNR: KAHC010435212026 Section 69 of the CGST
Act would be a sine qua non to maintain an application seeking such bail.
17. In such circumstances, the contention of Mr.Agarwal has been that unless the
order passed under Section 69 is communicated to the accused, in this case the
respondent, he cannot apply for an anticipatory bail. It has further been contended
that though not mandated by the statute, by extension of the principles of natural
justice and fairness in administrative action, the requirement of communication of
the order passed under Section 69 of the CGST Act to the accused before he is
arrested, has to be read into the statute and communication of such an order to the
person sought to be arrested must be held to be mandatory. If not, it would lead to a
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/150016515/ 3
Mr. Waseem Akram Khan vs The State By on 27 August, 2026
catch-22 situation where the accused can neither apply for anticipatory bail till the
order under Section 69 is passed nor does he become aware of the order to subject
the same to a challenge on available grounds before an appropriate forum.
18. We are inclined to accept the contention of Mr.Agarwal. The order under Section
69 of the CGST Act, as held, being a sine qua non to seek anticipatory bail, it would be
an anomaly to hold that the order need not be communicated at all, much less, be
communicated after the arrest of such person. In any case, communication of the
order would not, in any manner, obstruct the investigation ensued by the
department. On the contrary, it reinforces the right of the accused to seek
anticipatory bail as stipulated in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020)5
SCC1.
3. This Court, in the case of Abdul Majid Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes (ENF)-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46077
CNR: KAHC010435212026
04, Bengaluru,2 in paragraph No.17 has observed as
follows:
"Section 69 of the Act states that where the Commissioner has reason to believe that
the person has committed any offence specified in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause
(c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 132 which is punishable under clause
(i) or (ii) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of the said section, he may by order,
authorize any officer of central tax to arrest such person. Sub-Section (2) requires
that where a person is arrested under sub- section (1) for an offence specified under
sub-section (5) of Section 132, the officer authorized to arrest the person shall inform
such person of the grounds of arrest and produce him before a Magistrate within 24
hours. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that only on authorization by the
Commissioner under sub-section (1) of Section 69 of the Act, a person can be arrested
for an offence specified under sub-section (5) of Section 132 of the Act."
However, in the said case, since the respondent had opposed the bail application stating that they
have powers to arrest a person pursuant to summons under Section 70 of the Act, anticipatory bail
was granted to the petitioner therein. Since, the State Public Prosecutor has now made a submission
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/150016515/ 4
Mr. Waseem Akram Khan vs The State By on 27 August, 2026
that without an order passed under Section in Criminal Petition No. 9260/2026 and other
connected cases disposed of on 05.08.2026, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46077 CNR:
KAHC010435212026 69 of the Act, and without communicating the same to the petitioners, they
will not be arrested, I am of the opinion that the apprehension expressed, at this stage, is
misconceived. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER Criminal petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh
bail application if need arises.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/150016515/ 5
Disclaimer: Educational and research material only; not legal, tax, investment or professional advice. Verify the official court record, statutory version, jurisdiction and subsequent history before reliance.