JUDGMENT

Mr. Pritinker Diwaker, C.J.

Order on Civil Misc. Stay Application:

Sri Vikram Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Pranjal Krishna and Sri Raghav Dev Garg, for the petitioner, Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned ASGI, assisted by Sri Gopal Verma, for the Union of India and Sri Dhananjay Awasthi & Sri Lakshya Kumar Singh, for respondent no.2.

2. The main grievance in the instant writ petition is to declare Section 69 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (in short 'the Act, 2017') as unconstitutional. The challenge, in this regard, is mainly on the ground that the said provision is arbitrary and ultra virus of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Alternately, it has been prayed that the impugned Section 69 of the Act, 2017 be construed in the manner suggested in the writ petition or in such manner as this Court may deem fit. The petitioner has also prayed for summoning of records and for setting aside his illegal arrest made purportedly under the impugned Section 69 of the Act, 2017. It has also been prayed that the arrest of the petitioner dated 27.6.2023 in DGGI MeZU Case No.887 of 2023 be declared illegal.

3. The interim relief prayed for is that the petitioner be released on interim/ad-interim bail in DGGI MeZU Case No.887 of 2023 pending before the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut on such terms and conditions as this Court deems fit and proper pending final disposal of the writ petition.

4. The brief facts of the case necessary for consideration of the application for interim relief are that on 26.6.2023 at 6:30 am, the officers of DGGI came to the petitioner's residence at Greater Kailash, New Delhi and after interrogation and conclusion of search, the petitioner was taken from his residence to the office at Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi and thereafter, to the office of his Chartered Accountants. Further, according to the petitioner, after the search/enquiry, he was taken to the DGGI Office in Kaushambi, Ghaziabad. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that forcibly his confession was recorded and he was compelled to sign the same. On 27.6.2023, based on the proposal of the Investigating Team, an order was passed by the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner on 27.6.2023, agreeing with the proposal and arriving at reason to believe that the petitioner has committed offences specified under clause (b), clause (c), clause (d), clause (l) of Section 132 (1) of CGST Act and then the petitioner was arrested. On 27.6.2023, a formal arrest memo was served upon the petitioner by the Investigating Officer authorized by the Principal Commissioner, a copy whereof has been filed along with writ petition. On 28.6.2023, the petitioner was produced before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, to obtain judicial custody for a period of fourteen days. As his confession was already recorded, no custodial interrogation was sought by the Department.

5. The ground taken by the petitioner is that the sanction order dated 27.6.2023 is silent regarding the requirement specified in Section 41 (1) of Cr PC or the Arrest Memo does not record any satisfaction and opinion regarding the 'necessity to arrest' and whatever reason recorded is regarding the commission of offence besides they are silent and the same ought to have been followed in the light of the general directions issued by the Supreme Court. The petitioner states that there is complete violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI , (2022) 10 SC