Allahabad High Court Declares GST Arrest for Non-Compliance with Mandatory Procedures As Illegal

The Allahabad High Court declared the arrest of the person illegal and directed the immediate release of the petitioner while leaving it open to the department to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

The petitioner has approached the Allahabad High Court through a habeas corpus petition challenging his arrest and detention in proceedings initiated under Sections 132(1)(a), 132(1)(f) and 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner pleaded to quash the remand order passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that neither the arrest memo nor any annexure supplied to him disclosed the specific grounds of arrest and it did not disclose the place of arrest and the grounds of arrest supplied to the petitioner lacked a CBIC-DIN, and that Circular No. 2/2022-2023 dated March 11, 2025, issued by the CGST Department mandates the generation of a CBIC-DIN on official documents. It was also alleged that certain columns relating to personal search were left blank and that the remand magistrate did not notice these irregularities.

The respondents filed a counter-affidavit but could not place any corroborative evidence or material on record to reply to these contentions.

Upon examining the evidence on record, the Division Bench noted that the arrest memo did not mention the place of arrest, which clearly violates the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal. The Bench took note of the petitioner’s submission and since the respondents could not contend against the submissions, the Court held that the petitioner’s detention was in contravention of the law.

The Allahabad High Court held that the authorities had violated mandatory legal requirements and procedural safeguards which makes the arrest and detention of the petitioner illegal and directed his immediate release. However, the Court allowed respondent authorities to proceed afresh against the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, while it allowed the Writ Petition.