Absence of Transit Remand Order, Non‑Compliance with Arrest Memo Procedures in GST Fraud Case: Allahabad HC Declares Detention Illegal [Read Order]
The bench clarified that the tax authorities may proceed afresh against the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, if warranted.
![Absence of Transit Remand Order, Non‑Compliance with Arrest Memo Procedures in GST Fraud Case: Allahabad HC Declares Detention Illegal [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/06/12/2140111-transit-remand-order-non-compliance-arrest-memo-procedures-gst-fraud-case-allahabad-hc-detention-illegal-taxscan.webp "Absence of Transit Remand Order, Non‑Compliance with Arrest Memo Procedures in GST Fraud Case: Allahabad HC Declares Detention Illegal [Read Order]")
In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court declared the arrest and detention of a petitioner under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, illegal, citing serious procedural lapses, including the absence of a transit remand order and non‑compliance with mandatory arrest memo guidelines. The petitioner, Mohd. Akib, was arrested by officers of the Directorate...
In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court declared the arrest and detention of a petitioner under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, illegal, citing serious procedural lapses, including the absence of a transit remand order and non‑compliance with mandatory arrest memo guidelines.
The petitioner, Mohd. Akib, was arrested by officers of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Meerut Zonal Unit, in connection with an alleged GST fraud involving fake Input Tax Credit (ITC). He contended that he had voluntarily appeared before the authorities and cooperated with the investigation, yet was detained without proper justification or a recorded “reason to believe” as required under Section 69 of the CGST Act.
🚨 Confused by Constant GST Amendments? Keep Every Update at Your Fingertips | Click Here
Senior Advocate Amit Daga, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the arrest violated the GST Investigation Wing’s Instruction No. 2/2022‑23, which mandates written reasons and necessity for arrest. He further pointed out that the alleged amount linked to the petitioner, ₹4.8 crore, was below the ₹5 crore threshold under Section 132(1)(i) that makes an offence non‑bailable.
The division bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi observed that the petitioner was arrested in Dehradun but produced before a magistrate in Meerut without obtaining a transit remand, contravening settled law. The Court also noted that the arrest memo failed to disclose the place of arrest or annex the written grounds of arrest, violating the Supreme Court’s directions in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) and the departmental circular dated 13.01.2025.
Finding that the authorities had not complied with their own procedural safeguards, the Court held the detention “absolutely illegal in the eye of law” and directed the petitioner’s immediate release.
Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
