iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in State of Gujarat v. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer held that a person summoned under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could not invoke Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) at the summons stage. But that is no longer a complete statement of the law: in 2025, the Court said anticipatory bail may be sought before an FIR where specific facts provide a reasonable basis to apprehend arrest, and directed that contrary GST-context rulings, including Choodamani, not be treated as binding on that principle.
What did the Supreme Court decide in Choodamani?
In The State of Gujarat Etc. v. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer & Anr. Etc., Criminal Appeal Nos. 1963-64 of 2023, decided on 17 July 2023, the Supreme Court considered a GST inquiry and the respondents’ apprehension of arrest. The case concerned summons under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for recording statements.
The Court held that, in that statutory setting, a person summoned for a statement could not invoke Section 438 CrPC at the summons stage. The judgment’s headnote states: “However, at the stage of summons, the person summoned cannot invoke s.438, CrPC.” Read the Supreme Court’s 17 July 2023 judgment.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
What happened to the High Court order?
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and gave the respondents another opportunity to appear for recording their statements. It said the authority could proceed according to law if they did not appear. The decision addressed the procedural question before it; it did not decide whether the respondents had committed tax evasion.
#1 Best Overall
What protection did the 2023 judgment discuss?
The Court referred to the High Court’s power under Article 226 of the Constitution to consider pre-arrest protection, while explaining that the writ jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly. That discussion described a potential constitutional remedy in the case before the Court; it should not be read as a categorical statement of the law after the Supreme Court’s later ruling in Radhika Agarwal.
Can you seek anticipatory bail after a GST summons?
The answer depends on the facts and the current legal position. Choodamani stated that Section 438 relief was unavailable at the summons stage in the statutory circumstances before it. In its 27 February 2025 judgment in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Others, the Supreme Court clarified that anticipatory bail may be considered before an FIR is filed where specific, non-vague facts provide a reasonable basis to apprehend arrest. It also said that contrary GST-context decisions, including Choodamani, should not be treated as binding on that principle.
Rank #2
The Court stated in paragraph 70: “It is not essential that the application for anticipatory bail should be moved only after an FIR is filed, as long as facts are clear and there is a reasonable basis for apprehending arrest.” Read the Supreme Court’s 27 February 2025 judgment in Radhika Agarwal.
Accordingly, a GST summons does not, by itself, establish that an individual qualifies for anticipatory bail—or that the remedy is unavailable. The relevant question under the 2025 principle is whether specific facts support a reasonable apprehension of arrest. A vague fear alone is not what the Court described as sufficient.
Can GST officers arrest someone after issuing a summons?
The two judgments do not establish that every summons will be followed by arrest, or that a summons itself proves arrest is imminent. Choodamani addressed whether the respondents could invoke Section 438 at the summons stage in that case; Radhika Agarwal addressed when a court may consider anticipatory bail, including before an FIR, on sufficiently specific facts. Whether an arrest is lawfully available or reasonably apprehended in a particular investigation requires analysis of the governing statutory provisions and the facts.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How the 2023 and 2025 rulings fit together
| Decision | Context and date | Relevant proposition |
|---|---|---|
| State of Gujarat v. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer | GST inquiry involving Section 69 summons for recording statements; 17 July 2023. | Held that Section 438 CrPC could not be invoked at the summons stage in the statutory setting before the Court; discussed Article 226 protection. |
| Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India | Supreme Court judgment; 27 February 2025. | Held that an anticipatory-bail application need not await an FIR if specific facts provide a reasonable basis to apprehend arrest; identified Choodamani among contrary GST-context decisions that should not be treated as binding on that principle. |
The later judgment therefore qualifies how Choodamani can be relied on for anticipatory-bail applications before an FIR. The 2023 decision remains relevant as the ruling on its own facts and for its discussion of GST summons and writ jurisdiction; it should not be used to claim that anticipatory bail is categorically unavailable whenever a GST summons has been issued.
Quick Recap
What should someone summoned in a GST inquiry consider?
- Read the summons and identify its basis. The 2023 case concerned summons under Section 69 of the CGST Act for recording statements. The wording and statutory basis of a different notice may matter.
- Separate a summons from an apprehension of arrest. If seeking anticipatory bail, the 2025 judgment calls for specific facts supporting a reasonable basis to apprehend arrest, not a general or speculative concern.
- Get advice on the applicable law and facts. The judgments do not resolve every GST investigation or determine how every High Court will apply their principles. A lawyer can assess the statutory version, procedural rules and relevant binding decisions that apply to the individual case.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →
