-
by sayum
22 December 2025 1:30 AM
"Liberty is Not Illusory": Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares GST Arrest Illegal for Violating Articles 21 and 22; Faults Procedural Compliance under CGST Act. Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant decision declared the arrest of Bharat Lal Garg by GST Intelligence officials illegal, citing grave violations of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, and non-compliance with Sections 69 and 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that custodial restraint extending beyond 24 hours without judicial sanction amounts to illegal detention, and directed DGGI officials to show cause for contempt for obstructing a Court-appointed Warrant Officer. This judgment lays down strong constitutional and procedural safeguards in tax-related investigations and arrests.
The petitioner, Barkha Bansal, filed a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 seeking release of her husband Bharat Lal Garg, alleging that he had been illegally detained by officials of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Chandigarh Zonal Unit since 12:02 PM on 04.06.2025. The arrest memo was not served until 8:40 PM on 05.06.2025, after more than 30 hours of confinement.
Acting on the petition, the Court appointed a Warrant Officer, who recovered the detenue from the DGGI office in Chandigarh. The Warrant Officer's report indicated that DGGI officials obstructed him, snatched documents, and forcibly removed the detenue. The Court had earlier summoned affidavits and CCTV records, which were not adequately produced, raising further concerns about transparency and compliance with Supreme Court directions in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2021) 1 SCC 184.
The Court framed three central legal questions:
Whether keeping a summoned person overnight in the zonal office under Section 70 of the CGST Act violates constitutional rights?
Whether arrest under Section 69 is valid if authorization lacks application of mind or procedural compliance?
When should grounds of arrest be communicated to the arrestee — at the time of actual restraint or later?
Overnight Custody Violates Articles 21 and 22
The Court categorically held that overnight detention without judicial authorization or valid arrest violates fundamental rights under Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) and Article 22(2) (production before Magistrate within 24 hours).
“It does not stand to reason that the detenue, a family man, would voluntarily subject himself to such treatment… The illusion of voluntariness renders any consent invalid,” the Court remarked. [Para 17–18]
Citing Smt. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) SCC (Cri.) 236, the Court emphasized that psychological coercion and restraint without lawful authority still amount to illegal custody, even if not formally labelled as "arrest".
Arrest Without ‘Application of Mind’ Vitiates the Process under Section 69
Section 69 of the CGST Act allows arrest only when the Commissioner has “reason to believe” a cognizable and non-bailable offence under Section 132(1)(a)-(d) is committed.
The Court found that the Additional Director General merely endorsed a proposal forwarded digitally through the E-office system without recording any independent reasons or reviewing the material properly.
“The designated officer merely gave authorization on the ipse dixit of the Intelligence Officer... This alone would be sufficient to hold that there is total non-compliance of the procedure prescribed under Section 69 of the CGST Act.” [Para 25]
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India, 2025 SCC Online SC 449, which emphasized that the ‘reasons to believe’ must be recorded objectively and supported by material, and any arrest without this is unconstitutional.
Grounds of Arrest Must Be Furnished at the Time of Restraint
The GST officials contended that the arrest memo was served at 8:40 PM. However, the Court noted that restraint had begun at 5:46 PM, and grounds of arrest were not served immediately, violating both constitutional and statutory safeguards.
“The arrest becomes illegal when grounds are not promptly served at the moment of restraint… Arrest and remand are declared null and void.” [Paras 26–29]
The Court cited the Supreme Court ruling in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 245, reiterating that grounds of arrest must be conveyed in writing and without delay, or else the entire process stands vitiated.
On Consent and Coercion
“Erosion of fundamental rights is cloaked by procedural formalities… The illusion of voluntariness renders any consent invalid.” [Para 18]
On Recording Statements
“Statements of summoned persons must be recorded during office hours and preferably under CCTV coverage, with counsel present in visible range.” [Para 31]
On CCTV Non-Compliance
“It is incongruous that the cameras alone were affected due to ongoing construction, while the E-office system remained fully functional. This leads to an inference of deliberate non-compliance.” [Para 12]
On Obstruction of Warrant Officer
“Such recalcitrant misconduct depicting blatant disregard for rule of law cannot be tolerated. Law cannot be subverted in this manner.” [Para 10, 33]
Detention beyond 24 hours without Magistrate’s approval was held to be illegal.
The authorization under Section 69 was found to be mechanical, lacking application of mind, and violating Supreme Court mandates.
Grounds of arrest were not promptly communicated, rendering both arrest and subsequent remand invalid.
CCTV non-compliance indicated intent to suppress evidence of misconduct, in breach of Paramvir Singh Saini.
The DGGI’s conduct of obstructing the Warrant Officer and snatching papers amounts to prima facie contempt of court.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a well-reasoned and constitutionally anchored judgment, held that:
“The arrest is illegal and non est in the eyes of law.”
It reiterated the need for strict compliance with procedural safeguards, especially where arrest infringes personal liberty. The Court emphasized that investigative urgency cannot override fundamental rights, and that law enforcement must operate within the constitutional framework.
The matter has been adjourned to 30.07.2025 for considering release of the detenue and initiation of contempt proceedings against the officials involved.
Date of Decision: 18 July 2025
