In connection with alleged clandestine supply of goods by M/s Balaji Steel Rolling Mills and M/s Balaji Concast involving GST evasion of ₹15.25 crore, the petitioner, a partner in the said firms, was arrested by DGGI, Guwahati Zone. The petitioner contended that he had already recorded his statement, admitted tax liability, and deposited part payment. It was argued that arrest was illegal as no notice under s. 35(3) BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to s. 41A CrPC) was issued, contrary to the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51. The Gauhati High Court held that the alleged offence under s. 132(1)(a) being punishable with imprisonment up to 5 years, issuance of notice under s. 35(3) BNSS before arrest was mandatory. The arresting authority failed to record reasons or justification as required under s. 35(1)(b)(xii) BNSS. Relying on Radhika Agarwal v. UOI 2025 SCC OnLine SC 449, the Court held that though CGST is a special Act, the provisions of the BNSS (CrPC equivalent) apply unless expressly excluded. Non-compliance with mandatory procedure vitiated the arrest. Custodial interrogation was unnecessary since investigation was based on documents already seized. Bail granted with conditions including appearance before the DGGI and restriction on travel. [Bail Appln. No. 3440 of 2025, dt. 24-10-2025 ) (SJ)