JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.

1. Captioned writ petition is filed challenging, inter alia, the entire exercise of the petitioner’s arrest by respondent and remand proceedings by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to be untenable, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional in connection with File no.DGGI/INV/GST/2112/2025-GR-B. Considering the nature of the prayers prayed for in the captioned writ petition and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the captioned writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr Utkarsh Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule for respondent no.1 and Mr Tirth Nayak, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for respondent nos.2 and 3.

3. Mr Virat G. Popat, learned Advocate, at the outset, submitted that the challenge is restricted qua the action of the respondent in not strictly following the provisions of section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2017”) inasmuch as, the Commissioner has not recorded the reasons to believe and if recorded, the same are not supplied to the petitioner. It is a condition precedent that the Commissioner must record his reasons to believe before authorizing the arrest and absence of the formation of the reasons to believe, strikes at the root of the jurisdiction, rendering the arrest illegal. It is further submitted that the reasons to believe, which is purported to be supplied, is not signed by the Commissioner but some another officer who might have been authorized.

3.1 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India reported in (2025) 27 Centax 425 (SC): 2025(392) E.L.T.273(S.C). The issue before the Apex Court, was in connection with the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the PML Act”) as well as Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1962”), dealing with the powers of the officers to arrest. Section 19 of the PML Act as well as section 104 of the Act of 1962 deal with the powers to arrest. In both the provisions, the officers named therein and the expression ‘any other officer authorized by the Central Government’ covers within its sweep other officers also, who may be authorized by the Central Government. It is submitted that as per sub-section (1) of section 104 of the Act of 1962, the customs officer empowered by general or special order of the Commissioner, may record the reasons to believe. As against this, section 69 of the Act of 2017 only empowers the Commissioner to record the reasons and no other officer. Hence, it is Commissioner and Commissioner only, who statutorily has to record the reasons and then pass order authorizing any officer to arrest such person.

3.2 It is further submitted that while dealing with the provisions of section 69 of the Act of 2017, the Apex Court has clearly noted that to pass an order of arrest, in case of cognizable and non-cognizable offences, the Commissioner must satisfactorily show vide the reasons to believe recorded by him, that the person to be arrested has committed a non-bailable offence and the pre-conditions of sub-section (5) of section 132 are satisfied. Moreover, failure to do so would result in an illegal arrest. It is submitted that the Apex Court, has categorically held that the ratio recorded in the judgment in connection with the Act of 1962 would equally apply to the provisions of section 69 of the Act of 2017 insofar as maintenance of the records, obligation of the arresting officers and rights of the accused person arrested.

3.3 Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement reported in (2025) 2 SCC 248. The Apex Court, has held and observed that ‘the reasons to believe’ as recorded in writing are to be furnished. It has been held and observed that the requirements in sub-section (