# Jai Kumar Aggarwal v. Directorate General of Gst Intelligence & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 341
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-13
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 139 of 2026
- **Bench:** Siddharth, Jai Krishna Upadhyay
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jai-kumar-aggarwal-v-directorate-general-of-gst-intelligence-ors-54244
- **Pages:** 12

## Text

_Characters 0–39,874 of 41,272. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39874 for what follows._

2 All. Jai Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Directorate General of Gst Intelligence & Ors.
341
consider the final report and pass an order after considering both the initial report (charge sheet)
and the final report. If thereafter it comes to the conclusion that a conjoint reading of both reports
prima facie makes out a case against the appellants, only then shall it proceed to frame charges
against the appellants.

 27. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this judgment/order to all the District
Courts.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 341
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
THE HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 139 of 2026

Jai Kumar Aggarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
Directorate General of Gst Intelligence & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether the petitioner has been arrested illegally and detained in jail since 16.1.2026 and the order dated
17.01.2026 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, in Case No. 1361/2025, under Section 132(1)(c)
of the CGST Act, 2017, and whether the "grounds of arrest" and "reasons to believe" are mandatorily required
to be supplied to the arrestee

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 21, 22(1) & 226; The Central Goods and Services Tax ActSections 67, 69 & 132 (1) (c) - It is for the Commissioner to ascertain and record the "reasons to
believe" explicitly and with reference to the material and evidence underlying his opinion. It is
not provided anywhere that the "reasons to believe" should be supplied to the accused- There is
serious factual dispute about actual service of "grounds of arrest" on the petitioner before
affecting his arrest since in the remand order, there is no recital that the copy of "grounds of
arrest" was provided to the petitioner at the time of his arrest and before producing him before
the Remand Magistrate and finding of the remand order to be not in accordance with law and
also keeping in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil- The
remand order suffers from legal infirmity and cannot be sustained.
Held- Impugned order set aside- Writ Petition allowed. (E-15)

(Para 21 & 28)
Case Law Cited
Radhika Agrawal Vs. Union of India, (2025) 5 SCC 545; Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in
S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, dated 11.7.2022,; V. Senthil Balaji Vs. State represented by Deputy Director
and others, (2024) 2 Supreme Court Cases 51.;

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950; The Central Goods and Services Tax Act
342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Keywords
Habeas corpus; Section 132 (1) (c); CGST ; Offence alleged is punishable up to 5 years only; Satendra Kumar
Antil; Serious dispute; Actual service of "grounds of arrest"

Case Arising From
Order dated 17.01.2026 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, in Case No. 1361/2025, under
Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, Department DGGI, Ghaziabad, and all consequential proceedings
thereof

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohit Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dhananjay Awasthi, G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth, J. &
Hon'ble Jai Krishna Upadhyay, J.)

1. Heard Sri Imran Ullah, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohit Singh, Sri Nadeem
Murtaza, Sri Vedant Gupta, Ms. Snigdha Singh and Sri Harsh Vardhan Kediya and Sri Vineet
Vikram, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Dhnanjay Awasthi, Sri Gopi Krishan Soodh and Sri
Harmanpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel DGGI, Delhi (online), learned counsel for respondent
nos. 1 & 2 and Mrs. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A.-Ist for State-respondent nos. 3 & 4 and perused
the material on record.

2. The above noted habeas corpus writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for
following reliefs:-

i. To issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents
herein to produce the corpus/petitioner while declaring the detention, arrest, and subsequent
remand and custody of the petitioner as unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary and consequently
directing that the Petitioner be released forthwith;

ii. to issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order dated
17.01.2026 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, in Case No. 1361/2025, under Section
132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, Department DGGI, Ghaziabad, and all consequential
proceedings thereof;

iii. to issue any other and further writ, order, or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv. To allow the instant petition with costs.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 29.12.2025 at about 8:00 a.m., officers of respondent
no.1 detained the petitioner and started search proceedings at his residential premises as per Section
67 of CGST Act. After the search proceedings under Section under Section 67 of the CGST Act,
petitioner was arrested on 16.1.2026 as per Section 69 of the Act aforesaid.
2 All. Jai Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Directorate General of Gst Intelligence & Ors.
343

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that at about 6:40 p.m. on 16.1.2026
respondent no.1 handed over an arrest memo without any annexure and search memo to the
petitioner and directed the petitioner and his wife to accompany them. Apart from the aforesaid
documents, no other documents were supplied to the petitioner at the time of his arrest. Neither
"ground of arrest" nor "reasons to believe" as mandatorily required under Section 69 CGST Act
read with the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Radhika Agrawal Vs. Union of India, (2025)
5 SCC 545 were furnished to the petitioner. It has been submitted that the arrest of the petitioner
under Section 69 of CGST Act is unwarranted since the offence alleged is punishable up to 5 years
only and therefore in view of the recent judgment of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar
Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, dated 11.7.2022, the arrest
of petitioner could not have been made.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to the circular dated 17.8.2022
issued by the department of Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (GST- Investigation
Wing), the relevant portion of which reads as under:-

" F.No. GST/INV/Instructions/2021-22 GST-Investigation Unit

17th August 2022

Instruction No. 02/2022-23 [GST - Investigation]

Subject: Guidelines for arrest and bail in relation to offence punishable under the CGST
Act, 2017-reg.

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 16th August, 2021 in Criminal
Appeal No. 838 of 2021, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5442/2021, has observed as follows:

"We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate.
The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation
becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the
witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does
not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence the
existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it
can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating
Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact,
throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a
compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused."

Conditions precedent to arrest:

3.1 Sub-section (1) of Section 132 of CGST Act, 2017 deals with the punishment for
offences specified therein. Sub-section (1) of Section 69 gives the power to the Commissioner to
arrest a person where he has reason to believe that the alleged offender 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 clause (ii) of subsection (1), or sub-section (2) of the
Section 132 of CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, before placing a person under arrest, the legal
344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
requirements must be fulfilled. The reasons to believe to arrive at a decision to place an alleged
offender under arrest must be unambiguous and amply clear. The reasons to believe must be based
on credible material.

3.2 Since arrest impinges on the personal liberty of an individual, the power to arrest
must be exercised carefully. The arrest should not be made in routine and mechanical manner.
Even if all the legal conditions precedent to arrest mentioned in Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017
are fulfilled, that will not, ipso facto, mean that an arrest must be made. Once the legal ingredients
of the offence are made out, the Commissioner or the competent authority must then determine if
the answer to any or some of the following questions is in the affirmative:

3.2.1 Whether the person was concerned in the non-bailable offence or credible
information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been so concerned?

3.2.2 Whether arrest is necessary to ensure proper investigation of the offence?

3.2.3 Whether the person, if not restricted, is likely to tamper the course of further
investigation or is likely to tamper with evidence or intimidate or influence witnesses?

3.2.4 Whether person is mastermind or key operator effecting proxy/ benami transaction
in the name of dummy GSTIN or non-existent persons, etc. for passing fraudulent input tax credit
etc.?

3.2.5 As unless such person is arrested, his presence before investigating officer cannot
be ensured.

3.3 Approval to arrest should be granted only where the intent to evade tax or commit
acts leading to availment or utilization of wrongful Input Tax Credit or fraudulent refund of tax or
failure to pay amount collected as tax as specified in sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the CGST
Act 2017, is evident and element of mens rea / guilty mind is palpable.

3.4 Thus, the relevant factors before deciding to arrest a person, apart from fulfillment of
the legal requirements, must be that the need to ensure proper investigation and prevent the
possibility of

tampering with evidence or intimidating or influencing witnesses exists.

3.5 Arrest should, however, not be resorted to in cases of technical nature i.e. where the
demand of tax is based on a difference of opinion regarding interpretation of Law. The prevalent
practice of assessment could also be one of the deterrnining factors while ascribing intention to
evade tax to the alleged offender. Other factors influencing the decision to arrest could be if the
alleged offender is co-operating in the investigation, viz. compliance to summons, furnishing of
documents called for, not giving evasive replies, voluntary payment of tax etc."

6. He has submitted, relying upon the aforesaid circular, that there was no special reason
assigned at the time of the arrest of the petitioner justifying his arrest. The arrest of petitioner was
made casually in disregard of the procedural safe guards provided in the circular aforesaid.

7. Further reliance has been made on paragraph no. 34 of the judgement of Apex Court in the
case of Radhika Agrawal (Supra), which is quoted herein below:-

"34. The contention of the DoE that while "grounds of arrest" were mandatorily required
to be supplied to the arrestee, "reasons to believe", being an internal and confidential document,
need not be disclosed, was decisively rejected in Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement,
(2025) 2 SCC 248 . It was held that "reasons to believe" are to be furnished to the arrestee such
2 All. Jai Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Directorate General of Gst Intelligence & Ors.
345
that they can challenge the legality of their arrest. Exceptions are available in one-off cases where
appropriate redactions of "reasons to believe" are permissible. The relevant portion reads:

"41. Once we hold that the accused is entitled to challenge his arrest under Section 19(1)
of the PML Act, the court to examine the validity of arrest must catechise both the existence and
soundness of the "reasons to believe", based upon the material available with the authorized
officer. It is difficult to accept that the "reasons to believe", as recorded in writing, are not to be
furnished. As observed above, the requirements in Section 19(1) are the jurisdictional conditions to
be satisfied for arrest, the validity of which can be challenged by the accused and examined by the
court. Consequently, it would be incongruous, if not wrong, to hold that the accused can be denied
and not furnished a copy of the "reasons to believe". In reality, this would effectively prevent the
accused from challenging their arrest, questioning the "reasons to believe". We are concerned
with violation of personal liberty, and the exercise of the power to arrest in accordance with law.
Scrutiny of the action to arrest, whether in accordance with law, is amenable to judicial review. It
follows that the "reasons to believe" should be furnished to the arrestee to enable him to exercise
his right to challenge the validity of arrest. 42. We would accept that in a one-off case, it may not
be feasible to reveal all material, including names of witnesses and details of documents, when the
investigation is in progress. This will not be the position in most cases. DoE may claim redaction
and exclusion of specific particulars and details. However, the onus to justify redaction would be
on the DoE. The officers of the DoE are the authors of the "reasons to believe" and can use
appropriate wordings, with details of the material, as are necessary in a particular case. As there
may only be a small number of cases where redaction is justified for good cause, this reason is not
a good ground to deny the accused's access to a copy of the "reasons to believe" in most cases.
Where the non-disclosure of the "reasons to believe" with redaction is justified and claimed, the
court must be informed. The file, including the documents, must be produced before the court.
Thereupon, the court should examine the request and if they find justification, a portion of the
"reasons to believe" and the document may be withheld. This requires consideration and decision
by the court. DoE is not the sole judge.

43. Section 173(6) of the Code, permits the police officer not to furnish statements or
make disclosures to the accused when it is inexpedient in public interest. In such an event, the
police officer is to indicate the specific part of the statement and append a note requesting the
Magistrate to exclude that part from the copy given to the accused. He has to state the reasons for
making such request. The same principle will apply."

8. Further reliance has been made on paragraph Nos. 51, 52, 54, 64 & 66 of the aforesaid
judgement:

"51. We shall now draw our attention to the provisions of the GST Acts. We have
collectively referred to the Central as well as the State GST as "the GST Act".

55. To a large extent, our reasoning and the ratio on the applicability of the Code to the
Customs Act would equally apply to the GST Acts in view of Sections 4 and 5 of the Code. Subsection (10) to Section 67 of the GST Acts postulates that the provisions of the Code relating to
search and seizure shall, as far as may be, apply to search and seizure under the GST Acts, subject
to the modification that for the purpose of sub-section (5) to Section 165 of the Code, the word
'Magistrate' shall be substituted with the word 'Commissioner'. Section 69, which deals with the
346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
power of arrest, a provision which we will refer to subsequently, also deals with the provisions of
the Code when the person arrested for any offence under the GST Acts is produced before a
Magistrate. It also deals with the power of the authorised officers to release an arrested person on
bail in case of non-cognizable and bailable offence, having the same power and subject to the same
provisions as applicable to an officer in charge of a police station. We would, therefore, agree with
the contention that the GST Acts are not a complete code when it comes to the provisions of search
and seizure, and arrest, for the provisions of the Code would equally apply when they are not
expressly or impliedly excluded by provisions of the GST Acts.

54. Section 69 of the GST Acts states that where a Commissioner has reasons to believe
that a person has committed any offence specified in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) to Section
132, which is punishable under clauses (i) or (ii) of sub-section (1), or sub-section (2) of the said
section, he may authorise any officer of central or state tax to arrest such person. Sub-section (2)
requires that when a person is arrested for an offence specified in sub-section (5) to Section 132,
the officer authorised to arrest, must inform the person of the grounds of arrest and produce him
before the Magistrate within 24 hours.

64. The circular also refers to the procedure of arrest and that the Principal
Commissioner/Commissioner has to record on the file, after considering the nature of the offence,
the role of the person involved, the evidence available and that he has reason to believe that the
person has committed an offence as mentioned in Section 132 of the GST Act. The provisions of the
Code, read with Section 69(3) of the GST Acts, relating to arrest and procedure thereof, must be
adhered to. Compliance must also be made with the directions in D.K. Basu Vs. State of W.B.,
1997 SCC (Cri) 92.

64.1. The format of arrest, as prescribed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and
Customs in Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated 23.12.2019, has also been referred to in this
Instruction. Therefore, the arrest memo should indicate the relevant section(s) of the GST Act and
other laws.

64.2, In addition, the grounds of arrest must be explained to the arrested person and
noted in the arrest memo. This instruction regarding the grounds of arrest came to be amended by
the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (GST- Investigation Wing) vide Instruction No.
01/2025-GST dated 13.01.2025 (GST/INV/Instructions/21-22). The circular dated 13.01.2025 now
mandates that the grounds of arrest must be explained to the arrested person and also be furnished
to him in writing as an Annexure to the arrest memo. The acknowledgement of the same should be
taken from the arrested person at the time of service of the arrest memo.

64.3. Instruction 02/2022-23 GST (Investigation) dated 17.08.2022 further lays down that
a person nominated or authorised by the arrested person should be informed immediately, and this
fact must be recorded in the arrest memo. The date and time of the arrest should also be mentioned
in the arrest memo. Lastly, a copy of the arrest memo should be given to the person arrested under
proper acknowledgement.

64.4. The circular also makes other directions concerning medical examination, the duty
to take reasonable care of the health and safety of the arrested person, and the procedure of
arresting a woman, etc. It also lays down the post-arrest formalities which have to be complied
with. It further states that efforts should be made to file a prosecution complaint under Section 132
of the GST Acts at the earliest and preferably within 60 days of arrest, where no bail is granted.
Even otherwise, the complaint should be filed within a definite time frame. A report of arrests made
must be maintained and submitted as provided in paragraph 6.1 of the Instruction.
2 All. Jai Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Directorate General of Gst Intelligence & Ors.
347

9. It has been submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that it is clear from
remand order dated 17.1.2026 that the "medical report" and "memo of arrest" were served on the
petitioner on 17.1.2026 after remand order dated 17.1.2026 was passed by the learned Magistrate,
when his arrest was effected on 16.1.2026. Therefore, it is clear that the prior to his arrest, he was
no supplied the "grounds of arrest" or "reasons to believe". In fact the "reasons to believe" have not
been supplied to the petitioner as yet. It has been submitted that once it is found by this Court that
the after remand order was passed, "grounds of arrest" were supplied to the petitioner, the order of
remand become illegal and therefore the court has jurisdiction to entertain the habeas corpus writ
petition preferred by the petitioner before this Court in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the
case of Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharastra and another, MANU/SC/1492/2025.
Relevant paragraph no. 56 thereof is quoted herein below:-

" 56. In conclusion, it is held that:

i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is
mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023); ii)
The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she
understands; iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the
grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally.

The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case
at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the
magistrate.

iv) In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be
rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free."

10. It has finally been submitted that from the material on record and judgements cited above
at bar it is clear that petitioner has been arrested illegally and detained in jail since 16.1.2026.
Hence this writ petitioner deserves to be allowed by granting reliefs sought in the writ petition.

11. Sri Dhnanjay Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2, has vehemently opposed
the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. The first argument of learned
counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 is that "reasons to believe" are not required to be supplied to the
petitioner. There are only internal documents to be perused by the department and the court as
Section 69 (1) of the CGST Act, only provides that where Commissioner has reasons to believe that
a 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, authorise any officer of central tax to arrest
such person.

12. He has submitted that "reasons to believe" are not required to be supplied to such person
and only Commissioner should have "reasons to believe" that such person has committed the
alleged offence. He has submitted that word "may" used in Section has effect of word "shall" and is
mandatory in nature and not merely directory.
348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. Second argument of learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 is that in paragraph no. 58
of the judgment in the case of Radhika Agrawal (supra) the Apex Court has held that
Commissioner must record "reasons to believe" in his order while directing arrest of the person so
implicated. There is no requirement of serving copy of the "reasons to believe" of the accused.

14. He has thirdly submitted that vires of Section 69 of CGST Act has already been upheld in
the case of Radhika Agrawal (supra) and therefore argument made by learned counsel for the
petitioner is legally misconceived and deserves to be turned down.

15. He has forthly submitted that since vires of Section 69 and 70 of CGST Act has been
upheld by the Apex Court in the case of Radhika Agrawal (supra), therefore, unless the aforesaid
provisions of CGST Act are again challenged with reference to the service of "reasons to believe",
it is not open for the petitioner to raise such an argument as has been raised before this Court.

16. Learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 has finally submitted that judgment of Apex
Court in the Case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another (supra) does not applies to the
case of CGST Act which is complete code in itself and judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another (supra) is contrary in part to the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Radhika Agrawal (Supra). He submits that the ratio of case Satendra
Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another (supra), that where offence is/are punishable upto 7 years or
below arrest cannot be effected, is not applicable to the present case under CGST Act.

17. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 has submitted that the service of grounds of
arrest on the petitioner on 17.1.20256 at 5:00 p.m. will not affect the merits of the remand order
since grounds of arrest was admittedly supplied to the petitioner.

18. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court finds that the first issue to be decided is
regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. It has been vehemently argued by the learned
counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 that the petition is not maintainable since petitioner has been
arrested by following procedure of law as per Section 67/69 of CGST Act. We find that such a
contention raised before this Court is not apparent from record. It is settled law that if the court
finds that the order of remand passed by the Magistrate is not in accordance with law. The arrest of
the accused in such a case becomes illegal and the this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the habeas
corpus writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This view finds
support from the paragraph no. 28 of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of V. Senthil Balaji
Vs. State represented by Deputy Director and others, (2024) 2 Supreme Court Cases 51.

19. The argument of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the "reasons to believe"
were required to be furnished to the petitioner alongwith the "grounds of arrest" also needs
consideration. From the paragraph no.34 of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Radhika
Agrawal (supra) it is clear that "grounds of arrest" and "reasons to believe" are mandatorily
required to be supplied to the arrestee. We find that the aforesaid observation of Hon'ble Supreme
Court was with regard to the provisions of P.M.L.A. Act and not GST Act.
2 All. Jai Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Directorate General of Gst Intelligence & Ors.
349

20 Our view finds support from the paragraph nos. 58, 59, 60, 61, 64.2 of the judgment of
Apex Court in the case of Radhika Agrawal (supra), quoted herein below:-

"58. It is clear from the aforesaid provisions that, to pass an order of arrest in case of
cognizable and non-cognizable offences, the Commissioner must satisfactorily show, vide the
reasons to believe recorded by him, that the person to be arrested has committed a non-bailable
offence and that the pre-conditions of sub-section (5) to Section 132 of the Act are satisfied. Failure
to do so would result in an illegal arrest. With regard to the submission made on behalf of the
Revenue that arrests are not made in case of bailable offences, in our considered view, the
Commissioner, while recording the reasons to believe should state his satisfaction and refer to the
'material' forming the basis of his finding regarding the commission of a non-bailable offence
specified in clauses

(a) to (d) of sub-section (1) to Section 132. The computation of the tax involved in terms
of the monetary limits under clause (i) of sub-section (1), which make the offence cognizable and
non-bailable, should be supported by referring to relevant and sufficient material.

59. The aforesaid exercise should be undertaken in right earnest and objectively, and not
on mere ipse dixit without foundational reasoning and material. The arrest must proceed on the
belief supported by reasons relying on material that the conditions specified in sub-section (5) of
Section 132 are satisfied, and not on suspicion alone. An arrest cannot be made to merely
investigate whether the conditions are being met. The arrest is to be made on the formulation of the
opinion by the Commissioner, which is to be duly recorded in the reasons to believe. The reasons to
believe must be based on the evidence establishing - to the satisfaction of the Commissioner - that
the requirements of sub-section (5) to Section 132 of the GST Act are met.

60. Our attention was drawn to the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Makemytrip
(India) Private Limited and Another v. Union of India and Others, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4951.
which is a decision interpreting the power of arrest under the Finance Act, 1994. These provisions
are related to service tax. Excise duty, service tax, and other taxes are subsumed under the GST
regime. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the findings recorded in this decision to the extent
that the power of arrest should be used with great circumspection and not casually. Further, as in
the case of service tax, the power of arrest is not to be used on mere suspicion or doubt, or for even
investigation, when the conditions of sub- section (5) to Section 132 of the GST Acts are not
satisfied.

61. However, relying upon the judgment in the case of Makemytrip (supra), it has been
submitted on behalf of the petitioners, that the power under sub-section (5) to Section 132 cannot
be exercised unless the procedure under Section 73 of the GST Act is completed and an assessment
order is passed quantifying the tax evaded or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly
availed. According to us, this contention should not be accepted as a general or broad proposition.
We would accept that normally the assessment proceedings would quantify the amount of tax
evaded, etc. and go on to show whether there is any violation in terms of clauses (a) to (d) to subsection (1) of Section 132 of the GST Acts and that clause (i) to sub-section (1) is attracted. But
there could be cases where even without a formal order of assessment, the department/Revenue is
certain that it is a case of offence under clauses (a) to (d) to sub-section (1) of Section 132 and the
amount of tax evaded, etc. falls within clause (i) of sub-section (1) to Section 132 of the GST Acts
with sufficient degree of certainty. In such cases, the Commissioner may authorise arrest when he
is able to ascertain and record reasons to believe. As indicated above, the reasons to believe must
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be explicit and refer to the material and evidence underlying such opinion. There has to be a
degree of certainty to establish that the offence is committed and that such offence is non-bailable.
The principle of benefit of doubt would equally be applicable and should not be ignored either by
the Commissioner or by the Magistrate when the accused is produced before the Magistrate.

64.2. In addition, the grounds of arrest must be explained to the arrested person and
noted in the arrest memo. This instruction regarding the grounds of arrest came to be amended by
the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (GST- Investigation Wing) vide Instruction No.
01/2025-GST dated 13.01.2025 (GST/INV/Instructions/21-22). The circular dated 13.01.2025 now
mandates that the grounds of arrest must be explained to the arrested person and also be furnished
to him in writing as an Annexure to the arrest memo. The acknowledgement of the same should be
taken from the arrested person at the time of service of the arrest memo."

21. It is amply clear from the above paragraphs of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of
Radhika Agrawal (supra) that it is for the Commissioner to ascertain and record the "reasons to
believe" explicitly and with reference to the material and evidence underlying his opinion. It is not
provided anywhere that the "reasons to believe" should be supplied to the accused. Therefore, the
arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is turned down.

23. The argument of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner ought not to
have been arrested since he has been implicated for committing an offence, which is punishable
below 7 years appears to be correct since Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil
(supra) has not excluded the application of ratio of the judgment to the offences covered under the
Special Act. Therefore we agree that the ratio of the judgment in the case of Satendra Kumar
Antil (supra) will apply to this case also.

24. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 has pointed to the counter affidavit and has
demonstrated that the arrest memo, Jama Talasi, grounds of arrest and intimation regarding arrest
of the petitioner sent to his wife were handed over to the petitioner and his wife and their signatures
were taken on 16.1.2026 itself when the remand order was passed on 17.1.2026. Therefore, it is
clear that the service of grounds of arrest and other documents were made on the petitioner before
producing him before Remand Magistrate on 17.1.2026. Therefore, there is full compliance of the
mandate of law regarding providing of the "memo of arrest" and "grounds of arrest" to the
petitioner and also providing the copy of intimation to his wife about his arrest.

25. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the argument of counsel for
respondent nos.1&2 is absolutely incorrect. He has submitted that the signatures of the petitioner
were taken on all the documents while in custody and the copy of the same was never supplied to
the petitioner or his wife. He has submitted that before the Remand Magistrate it was specifically
argued on behalf of the petitioner that the "grounds of arrest" of petitioner was never provided to
him in violation of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Radhika Agrawal (supra), Rihan
Kumar, etc. and the mandate of Apex Court has been violated. There is also no document
evidencing that "reasons to believe" were present on the record and hence remand application of
the prosecution should have been rejected. He has pointed out further that the Remand Magistrate
has not recorded any finding that the "grounds of arrest" has been supplied to the petitioner. The
findings recorded by the Remand Magistrate only is that on 16.1.2026 the accused was arrested and
2 All. Jai Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Directorate General of Gst Intelligence & Ors.
351
the"grounds of arrest"were communicated to him in Hindi and English, orally and his signatures
were taken thereon 16.1.2026 and after his arrest, memo of "grounds of arrest" was provided to him
which has been brought on record. The copy of "reasons to believe" has been provided to the Court
in sealed cover by the prosecution, which has been perused by the Court.

26. We find from paragraph No. 64.2 of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Rakhika
Agrawal (Supra) that as per the circular dated 13.1.2025, grounds of arrest must be explained to
the arrested person and also be furnished to him in writing as an Annexure to the arrest memo. In
this case we find that in the arrest memo, there is no mention of any annexure. Therefore it appears
that opposite party nos. 1 & 2 have not been complied their own circular dated 13.1.2025 by
furnishing to the petitioner the "grounds of arrest" alongwith the arrest memo as its annexure. On
this account also we find that the remand order of petitioner is illegal.

27. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the copy of medical
report and grounds of arrest were received by learned counsel for the petitioner in Court at
5:00 p.m. on 17.1.2026 as per the endorsement made in the remand order dated 17.1.2026.
Therefore he contends that after the remand order was passed, the medical report and grounds
of arrest were provided to the counsel for the petitioner. Earlier his signatures were taken only
on grounds of arrest. Further the court did the "reasons to believe" recorded by Commissioner
by opening the sealed cover, wherein it was produced before the court. As per the paragraph of
the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Radhika Agrawal (Supra) the court was required to
ascertain whether the "reasons to believe" show that the arrest of petitioner has been made
relying upon any credible evidence or it has been made only to investigate the suspicion
against petitioner. Whether the power of arrest was used with circumspection and case was
required to be ascertained by court before allowing remand application of respondents, which is
not apparent from the remand order.

28. After the considering the fact that there is serious factual dispute about actual service of
"grounds of arrest" on the petitioner before affecting his arrest since in the remand order, there is
no recital that the copy of "grounds of arrest" was provided to the petitioner at the time of his arrest
and before producing him before the Remand Magistrate and finding of the remand order to be not
in accordance with law and also keeping in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of
Satendra Kumar Antil (supra), we hold that the remand order suffers from legal infirmity and
cannot be sustained. It is hereby set aside.

29. This writ petition is allowed.

30. The petitioner shall be released from custody on production of copy of this order before
the court/authority concerned duly downloaded in official website of this Court without waiting for
production of certified copy of this order, which shall be filed after the court reopens after weekly
holidays.

31. It shall be open for the respondent to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance
with law, if so warranted.
---------
352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 2 ILRA 352
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 428 of 2025
Connected with other cases

Hasnen ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(A) Whether the constitutional and statutory safeguards governing preventive detention, including supply of
relied-upon material, consideration of representations, reference to and opinion of the Advisory Board, and
adherence to prescribed timelines, were duly complied with.
(B) Whether the detaining authority's satisfaction was reached in accordance with law, on relevant and
proximate material, and whether the grounds are precise and sufficient to enable an effective representation
under Article 22(5).
(C) Whether the impugned detention orders are founded on material that legitimately pertains to "public
order", as distinguished from a mere "law and order" situation.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 21, 22(1) & 226; The National Security Act, 1980-Section
3, 5A, 8, 10, 11, 12 & 13- No specific grievance of non-supply of relied-upon documents or of
inadequacy of grounds disabling representation has been substantiated before this Court by the
petitioners. The requirements of Section 8 and Article 22(5) are accordingly found to have been
complied with.

The entire chain of statutory safeguards, i.e.