Punjab & Haryana HC Declares 30-Hour Detention at DGGI Illegal, Directs Statements be Recorded Only in Office Hours under CCTV [Read Order]

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently held that the detention of a person by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), summoned in connection with an investigation for over 30 hours, was unlawful and ordered his immediate release.

The petition was filed by Barkha Bansal, the wife of the detenue Bharat Lal Garg.

The petitioner challenged the detention of and prolonged interrogation of the detenue at the DGGI office after business hours between the 4th and 5th of June 2025.

The High Court referenced an affidavit filed by Sanket Kale, the Additional Director General of DGGI, in which it was explained that the CCTV cameras at the zonal office had been temporarily non-functional due to construction work since 30 May 2025 and that steps had been taken to repair them. It was further stated that the statement of the detenue was recorded with his consent, and that it was never retracted by the detenue.

The Court accepted the explanation about remedial steps but found the overall conduct by the authority to be unacceptable and incompatible with constitutional safeguards.

The petitioner was represented by Vinod Ghai, Gurbir S. Dhillon, Arnav Ghai and Kashish Sahni

Meanwhile, the respondents were represented by Manish Bansal, Viren Sibal, Sidhi Bansal, Ridhi Bansal, Viney Kumar, Satya Pal Jain, Rajesh Sethi, Sourabh Goel, Samridhi Jain, Geetika Sharma, Anju Bansal and Deify Jindal.

The respondent counsel referenced the affidavit filed by the Additional Director General and stated that the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2021) would be followed.

The High Court noted that it had passed a detailed order on 18.07.2025, wherein it relied on a number of cases including the Supreme Court decision in Radhika Agarwal vs. Union of India & Anr. (2025), decision of the Bombay High Court in Mahesh Devchand Gala vs. Union Of India of India & Ors. (2024) and a Division Bench of the Telangana High Court in Agarwal Foundries Private Limited Rama Towers and others vs. Union of India & Ors. (2020).

In the order dated 18.07.2025, it was noted that the DGGI maintained that the proceedings under Section 70 of the CGST Act are judicial in nature and the DGGI officials must not be equated with police; it was further submitted that voluntary statements taken after hours, with the consent of the summoned persons are perfectly valid.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed that the detenue was kept beyond office hours without urgency, that only data extraction had been undertaken and that no cognizable offence had been made out at that stage, thus keeping the detenue overnight violated Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

The High Court also noted procedural lapses including delay in supplying grounds of arrest and the absence of authorisations carrying Document IdentificationNumber (DIN) in the entire process, thus vitiating the arrest.

In terms of the precedents referenced, the High Court held that any person summoned by DGGI must have statements recorded only during office hours, may request counsel to be present in the field of vision of the summoned person but not his hearing range. Such summoned persons may also request recording of their statement under CCTV.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and ordered the jail authorities to release the detenue, if he was not required with any other case.

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