57th GST Council: Proposed Removal of GST Arrest Powers under Section 69

1. Introduction

In a significant development under the Goods and Services Tax regime, the GST Council, in its 57th meeting held on 8 October 2026, recommended the complete withdrawal of the power of arrest available to GST authorities under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The recommendation proposes the complete omission of Section 69, which presently empowers GST authorities to arrest persons accused of specified GST offences, subject to prescribed statutory conditions.

The proposed removal marks an important change in the GST enforcement framework, as it seeks to eliminate the department's power to arrest taxpayers and other persons during GST investigations under this provision.

However, the withdrawal of arrest powers should not be confused with the abolition of GST investigations, tax recovery proceedings or criminal prosecution.

The proposal is specifically directed at removing the statutory power of arrest under Section 69 while retaining other lawful enforcement mechanisms under the GST framework.

In this article, I have discussed the existing arrest provisions under Section 69, the proposed withdrawal of GST arrest powers, their practical implications, treatment of pending investigations and arrest cases, and the distinction between arrest, prosecution and other GST proceedings. In case you have any doubt after reading this article, or if you feel that any practical aspect requires further discussion, you may contact me at the contact details mentioned at the end of this article.

2. Existing Provisions of Section 69 - Power to Arrest

Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 presently empowers the Commissioner to authorise the arrest of a person where there are reasons to believe that the person has committed specified offences covered by Section 132.

The provision consists of three principal parts.

Section 69(1) - Authority to Arrest

Under Section 69(1), where the Commissioner has reasons to believe that a person has committed an offence specified in clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d) of Section 132(1), punishable under the prescribed categories, or a qualifying repeat offence under Section 132(2), the Commissioner may authorise an officer of central tax to arrest such person.

The essential requirements are:

1. The alleged conduct must constitute an offence falling within the specified statutory categories.

2. The prescribed monetary and punishment conditions must be satisfied.

3. The Commissioner must have reasons to believe that the relevant offence has been committed.

4. The Commissioner must authorise the arrest through an order.

5. The arrest must comply with the applicable legal and procedural safeguards.

Therefore, the existence of a tax demand, an ITC mismatch or an allegation of wrongdoing does not automatically authorise arrest.

Section 69(2) - Production Before Magistrate

Where a person is arrested for an offence covered by Section 132(5), the authorised GST officer is required to:

• Inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest.
• Produce the arrested person before a Magistrate within 24 hours, subject to the applicable rules for calculating that period.

Section 69(3) - Bail and Related Procedures

Section 69(3) provides for the treatment of persons arrested for non-cognizable and bailable offences, including admission to bail or forwarding to the custody of a Magistrate.

It also confers specified bail-related powers upon the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner.

Thus, Section 69 presently provides the statutory framework for departmental arrest and associated procedures.

3. Circumstances in Which Arrest Was Permitted under the Existing Law

Under the existing provisions, the power of arrest is linked to serious offences specifically referred to in Section 69.

The principal categories include:

For the principal offences referred to in Section 69(1), the existing arrest provision generally applies where the relevant amount exceeds ₹2 crore and the applicable punishment category is satisfied. The repeat-offender provision requires separate examination.

The Commissioner must also satisfy the independent statutory requirement of having reasons to believe that an offence has been committed.

Accordingly, arrest is a legally available enforcement measure under the existing GST law, but not an automatic consequence of every GST violation.

4. Recommendation of the 57th GST Council - Complete Omission of Section 69

The GST Council, in its meeting dated 8 October 2026, recommended the complete withdrawal of arrest powers under GST through omission of Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017.

The recommendation goes beyond merely increasing the monetary threshold for arrest or restricting the circumstances in which arrest may take place.

Instead, it proposes removal of the entire statutory provision that empowers GST authorities to arrest persons under Section 69.

Consequently, once the proposed amendment comes into force, GST officers would no longer be empowered to arrest a person under Section 69, irrespective of the amount involved in the alleged GST offence.

The proposed removal would apply whether the alleged amount is ₹3 crore, ₹5 crore, ₹10 crore or even ₹100 crore.

Comparison of Existing and Proposed Law

The central feature of the recommendation is that the departmental arrest power would cease to exist upon the provision's omission.

It is important, however, to distinguish the proposed omission of Section 69 from the separate reforms proposed to Section 132. Although removal of Section 69 would eliminate the GST department's statutory arrest power, the continuation of criminal prosecution would depend upon whether the alleged conduct remains a prosecutable offence under the amended Section 132, including the proposed ₹5 crore monetary threshold and the proposed narrowing or omission of specified offences.

5. Practical Examples Explaining the Impact of Removal of Section 69

Example 1 - Fraudulent ITC of ₹3 crore

Suppose a GST-registered company is alleged to have fraudulently availed ITC amounting to ₹3 crore through invoices without actual receipt of goods.

Existing position: The Commissioner may authorise arrest under Section 69 if the prescribed requirements are fulfilled.

Proposed position: Once Section 69 is omitted, GST authorities would no longer have the power to arrest the person under that section.

However, the department may continue investigating the alleged irregularity and initiate other proceedings permitted by law.

Further, if the proposed ₹5 crore prosecution threshold under Section 132 is enacted in the recommended form, the separate question whether criminal prosecution itself can continue would also have to be examined under the amended Section 132.

Example 2 - Fake Invoices Involving ₹8 crore

Suppose a person is alleged to have issued fake invoices involving fraudulent ITC of ₹8 crore without supplying goods.

Existing position: Arrest may be authorised under Section 69, subject to the statutory requirements.

Proposed position: The GST department would no longer have the power to arrest the person under Section 69, even though the amount involved is substantial.

The removal of arrest powers would not prevent the department from conducting an investigation or taking other legally permissible action. Criminal prosecution may continue if the offence satisfies the amended Section 132 and other applicable statutory conditions.

Example 3 - GST Collected but Not Deposited: ₹6 crore

A supplier collects GST amounting to ₹6 crore from customers but fails to deposit the amount with the government for more than three months after the prescribed due date.

Existing position: The offence may attract arrest under Section 69 where the legal conditions are satisfied.

Proposed position: The department would not be able to arrest the supplier under Section 69.

However, the obligation to deposit GST and any applicable interest or penalties would continue.

Where the conduct continues to fall within a surviving Section 132 offence and satisfies the proposed prosecution threshold, criminal prosecution may separately remain available.

Example 4 - Large GST Fraud of ₹25 crore

Suppose GST authorities detect an alleged fraudulent ITC transaction involving ₹25 crore.

Existing position: The Commissioner may authorise arrest under Section 69 where all the required conditions are fulfilled.

Proposed position: The power to arrest under Section 69 would stand withdrawn, notwithstanding the substantial amount involved.

Nevertheless, criminal prosecution may still be pursued where permitted by the applicable amended law.

Example 5 - Taxpayer Cooperating with Investigation

Suppose a taxpayer receives summons in connection with an alleged GST irregularity and provides the required documents, statements and explanations.

Existing position: Cooperation does not itself extinguish arrest powers where a qualifying offence and statutory conditions exist.

Proposed position: Once Section 69 is omitted, the departmental power to arrest under that section would not exist, whether or not the person cooperates.

However, the person would still be required to comply with lawful summons and investigation procedures.

6. What Happens to Investigations Already Pending?

One of the important questions concerns cases in which an investigation commenced before the proposed omission of Section 69.

The consequences may differ according to the stage of the proceedings.

Thus, while the proposed omission would eliminate future arrest powers under Section 69, its effect upon arrests already made or pending custody proceedings must be evaluated separately.

Subsequent development: It has subsequently been reported that the Centre and States are working on a standard operating procedure for dealing with existing GST arrest cases in the transition to the proposed framework. This reinforces the need to examine pending arrest and custody matters separately from future exercises of Section 69 power. As this is presently a reported implementation development, the final position should be examined against any officially issued SOP, statutory amendment or notification.

7. Does Removal of Section 69 Mean Complete Protection Against Arrest?

The proposed amendment removes the specific statutory power of GST authorities to arrest under Section 69.

However, it does not necessarily provide absolute immunity against every form of arrest or custody.

First: A competent criminal court may issue a warrant under applicable criminal procedure in circumstances authorised by law, including non-appearance before the court.

Second: Where a person is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment, the competent court may direct that the sentence be executed in accordance with law.

Third: Where the same conduct independently constitutes an offence under another applicable law, the powers and remedies available under that separate legislation would require independent examination.

Accordingly, it is essential to distinguish between the withdrawal of the GST department's arrest powers and the continued operation of the criminal justice system.

8. What Powers Will Continue with GST Authorities?

The proposed omission of Section 69 does not eliminate the department's powers to detect and investigate tax evasion or recover revenue.

The following powers would remain available, unless separately modified by law:

Therefore, the proposal should be understood as a change in the available methods of enforcement, rather than a withdrawal of the department's authority to administer GST.

9. Impact on Taxpayers and Business Operations

The proposed abolition of arrest powers under Section 69 may have important practical consequences.

Reduction in the Risk of Departmental Arrest

Persons facing GST investigations would no longer be subject to the specific departmental arrest power under Section 69 once its omission takes effect.

This may reduce the immediate risk of custody during departmental investigations.

Greater Distinction Between Investigation and Punishment

The proposed system maintains a clearer separation between departmental investigation and criminal punishment imposed by courts.

Investigations may continue, but departmental arrest would not remain an available measure under Section 69.

Business Continuity

Arrest of directors, promoters or key managerial personnel may adversely affect normal business operations.

Withdrawal of the statutory arrest power may reduce this particular disruption in cases involving alleged GST offences.

Continued Responsibility for GST Compliance

The proposed reform does not absolve taxpayers from complying with GST laws, maintaining records, responding to lawful notices or discharging tax liabilities.

The department would retain other powers necessary for GST administration and enforcement.

10. Effective Date of the Proposed Amendment

The 57th GST Council meeting was held on 8 October 2026 , and the recommendation concerning omission of Section 69 was announced through the Ministry of Finance's official press release.

Further clarification was issued through official FAQs dated 9 October 2026 .

However, a recommendation of the GST Council does not by itself amend the CGST Act.

The proposed omission requires the necessary legislative amendment and commencement in accordance with law.

The precise statutory commencement date for omission of Section 69 has not yet been notified. Although 1 April 2027 has subsequently been reported as an implementation target for a wider set of GST reforms requiring legislative and rule amendments, that reported target should not be treated as the legally effective date of Section 69's omission unless and until the relevant amendment is enacted and brought into force.

Accordingly, as on 20 October 2026, Section 69 continues to remain applicable , and GST authorities may exercise their existing statutory arrest powers subject to the applicable requirements.

Taxpayers should not treat the proposed deletion as legally effective until the necessary amendment comes into force.

11. Conclusion

The recommendation of the 57th GST Council to completely omit Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 represents a significant proposed reform in GST enforcement.

Under the existing law, GST authorities possess the power to arrest persons accused of certain serious GST offences, provided that the statutory conditions are satisfied.

The proposed omission would withdraw this departmental arrest power altogether, irrespective of the monetary amount involved in the alleged offence.

However, the proposal does not abolish GST investigations, tax recovery proceedings, civil penalties or criminal prosecution under other applicable provisions. The continuation of prosecution under Section 132 must also be considered in light of the separately proposed ₹5 crore prosecution threshold and changes to individual offences.

Further, the removal of departmental arrest powers should not be interpreted as removal of the powers of competent criminal courts or immunity from imprisonment following conviction.

The fundamental effect of the recommendation is that GST authorities would lose their statutory power to arrest under Section 69, while other lawful processes for investigation, recovery and qualifying prosecution would continue.

The actual legal effect, including its application to pending proceedings and arrests made before commencement, will depend upon the final statutory amendment, its commencement and transitional provisions.

The author can also be reached at varunmukeshgupta96@gmail.com