GST Authorities Must Serve ‘Grounds of Arrest’ in Writing: Allahabad HC allows Habeas Corpus Petition [Read Order]

The Allahabad High Court has held that GST ( Goods and Services tax ) authorities must provide the grounds of arrest in writing along with the arrest memo. The court directed to release the petitioner from the custody.

The Court allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by a businessman who alleged that he was arrested by GST authorities without being properly informed of the reasons for his arrest even during production before the magistrate.

Jai Kumar Aggarwal, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his arrest by officers of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). According to the facts of the case, GST officers conducted a search at the petitioner’s residence on 29 December 2025 under Section 67 of the CGST Act.

After the search proceedings, the petitioner was arrested on 16 January 2026 under Section 69 of the CGST Act.

The petitioner argued that at the time of arrest he was only handed an arrest memo without any annexures and was not given the written grounds of arrest or the reasons forming the basis of his arrest, which is mandatory.

The petitioner contended that the omission of not providing annexure violated the instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC). He said that the arrest was illegal.

In the CBIC instruction dated 13 January 2025, it mandates that the grounds of arrest must be explained to the arrested person and also furnished in writing as an annexure to the arrest memo, with acknowledgement taken from the person arrested, submitted by the counsel of the petitioner Adv. Mohit Singh.

The GST department opposed the petition and argued that the arrest had been carried out in accordance with Section 69 of the CGST Act.

The department claimed that the necessary documents, including the grounds of arrest, were explained to the petitioner and that the arrest was lawful. It was also argued that the “reasons to believe” recorded by the Commissioner are internal documents and are not required to be furnished to the accused.

Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay and Justice Siddharth clarified that while the “reasons to believe” recorded by the Commissioner are not required to be supplied to the accused, the grounds of arrest must be clearly communicated and provided in writing to the arrested person.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Radhika Agrawal v. Union of India and the CBIC, which mandated that the grounds of arrest be supplied as an annexure to the arrest memo at the time of arrest.

The Court noted that in the present case, the arrest memo did not mention any annexure containing the grounds of arrest. It further observed that there was no clear evidence that the petitioner had been given a written copy of the grounds of arrest before being produced before the Magistrate.

Since the departmental instructions and legal requirements had not been properly followed, the Court concluded that the remand order passed by the Magistrate suffered from legal infirmity.

On this basis, the High Court held that the detention of the petitioner could not be sustained in law. The Court set aside the remand order and allowed the habeas corpus petition, directing that the petitioner be released from custody immediately.

At the same time, the Court clarified that the authorities can proceed with the action.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates