Illegality in arrest proceedings under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act requires strict adherence to statutory safeguards, including explicit 'reasons to believe' about the occurrence of the alleged offence.

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

I.A. No.17252 of 2025 and I.A. No. 17361 of 2025

Both these interlocutory applications have been filed on behalf of the petitioner for removing the surviving defects, as pointed by the office.

Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has raised no objection.

Hence, the surviving defects, as pointed by the office, are hereby ignored.

Both these interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

W.P. (Cr.) (Filing) No.29121 of 2025

Instant writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the arrest memo dated 04.12.2025 issued in Complaint Case No.4596 of 2025 pending before the Court of Special Judge, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur in exercise of power conferred under Section 69 of Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as ‘CGST Act, 2017’) punishable under Section 132(1)(a), 132(a)(f) and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017.

2. Petitioner is one of the partners of partnership firm M/s Shubh Laxmi Traders, Daltonganj which is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of iron ore and is registered under the provisions of CGST Act, 2017 bearing GSTIN 20ADVFS3446E1Z1. An official complaint was lodged by Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Regional Unit, Jamshedpur at the Special Court, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur which was registered as Complaint Case No.4596 of 2025 against this petitioner on 05.12.2025.

3. Gravamen of allegation against the petitioner is that specific intelligence was received of large-scale evasion of GST by M/s Shubh Laxmi Traders and accordingly, raid was conducted at multiple places of the said firm on 02.12.2025 which continued till 04.12.2025 under the provision of Section 67(2) of CGST Act, 2017. During search, incriminating physical and digital evidences were recovered disclosing tax evasion to the tune of Rupees Thirty-Five Crores.

4. Argument on behalf the petitioner is of two folds. Firstly, it is regarding illegality of arrest and secondly, it is about illegality of custody.

5. So far, the first plea is concerned, it is submitted that the statutory requirement for arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 as well as guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court inRadhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India,(2025) 6 SCC 545 , has not been followed, specific reference is made to the ratio as laid down in para 60 and 61 of the judgment. It is further argued that in pursuant to the direction of Hon’ble Supreme CourtSiddharth Vs. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676 , the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, C.G.S.T.-Investigation Wing, issued a circular on 17.08.2022 which inter alia provided the conditions precedent to arrest, has also not been followed in the present case.

6. It is submitted that the authorization to arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 was issued by Additional Director General, DGGI, Zonal Unit, Patna on 04.12.2025 at 22:14:50 pm (Annexure-4). This authorization of arrest did not satisfy the above stated requirement, with regard to the reasons to believe that the persons had committed any offence specified in Clause(a) or Clause (b) or Clause (c) or Clause(d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 132.

It is further argued that the very timing of the issuance of this authorization commenced in this case on 02.12.2025 at 11:45 a.m. and it concluded on 04.12.2025 at 11:30 p.m. During this period, spot summons were issued and without disclosing the materials “for reasons to believe” the authorization to arrest was issued. It is contended that further reasons to believe as required, h