Future Group GST Case: Supreme Court Questions Bombay HC’s Power To Grant Sunil Biyani 7-Day Protection From Arrest
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its decision on the Union of India’s appeal questioning whether the Bombay High Court could grant Future Group non-executive director Sunil Biyani one week’s protection from arrest after holding that his anticipatory bail plea was premature.
The High Court had directed that if GST authorities subsequently authorise Biyani’s arrest in an alleged ₹1,200 crore GST fraud probe, he should not be arrested for one week from the date the arrest order is communicated to him, allowing him time to seek legal remedies.
A bench of JusticesDipankar Datta and Sheel Nagureserved judgment after hearing the parties.
During the hearing, Justice Datta repeatedly questioned the legal basis for the High Court’s direction. He noted that the High Court had held there was no apprehension of arrest because no order authorising arrest under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, had been passed.
“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.
Counsel for Biyani submitted that Section 69 permits arrest only after the Commissioner records “reasons to believe” that the statutory conditions are satisfied. However, the order recording those reasons is neither placed in the public domain nor ordinarily communicated to the person concerned.
He argued that if an anticipatory bail plea is rejected because no Section 69 order exists and the Commissioner subsequently issues such an order without communicating it, the person concerned could be summoned and arrested without any opportunity to challenge the Commissioner’s satisfaction.
“The Commissioner may pass an order under Section 69 and keep it in his pocket. I may be summoned and arrested without ever knowing that such an order exists. The order recording the ‘reasons to believe’ should at least be communicated so that the person can avail legal remedies before being deprived of his liberty,” counsel submitted.
He further contended that, unlike an FIR, a Section 69 order is not publicly available. Communicating the order is therefore the minimum safeguard necessary to protect personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The bench, however, distinguished that issue from the High Court’s grant of protection.
“An order passed in exercise of statutory power has to be made known to the person who is going to be affected by it. But where does the High Court derive the power to grant seven days’ protection in a proceeding which it has itself held to be not maintainable?”Justice Datta orally remarked.
The court then asked the Union government how orders under Section 69 are ordinarily communicated.
Appearing for the Union of India, Additional Solicitor General S. Dwarkanath submitted that the government had no reason to withhold such orders and accepted that they should be communicated to the affected person.
“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.
When the bench asked whether a person should be informed of an order authorising arrest before it is acted upon, the ASG responded that such an order has to be communicated. He added that the person would remain free to challenge it if the Commissioner’s “reasons to believe” 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,” the ASG said.
After hearing submissions, the bench reserved its verdict.
The case arose from an anticipatory bail application filed by Sunil Biyani, a non executive director of the Future Group, apprehending arrest pursuant to summons issued by the Union of India under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in connection with a GST investigation.
On 23 January 2026, the Bombay High Court directed the prosecution to produce an order, if any, passed under Section 69 of the CGST Act, which empowers GST authorities to arrest a person. In response, the Union of India filed an additional affidavit on 4 February 2026, stating that no such arrest order had been issued.
Relying on the affidavit, the applicant argued that in the absence of an order under Section 69, there was no imminent threat of arrest and the anticipatory bail plea deserved consideration.
The Bombay High Court ultimately held that since no order authorising arrest under Section 69 had been passed, the anticipatory bail application was premature. However, it granted Sunil Biyani limited protection by directing that if such an arrest order is passed in future, he shall not be arrested for one week from the date on which the order is communicated to him.
Click Here To Read/Download Bombay HC Order
Case Title : UNION OF INDIA vs SUNIL BIYANICase Number : DIARY NO. 34138/2026
