SAFEGUARDING LIBERTY IN TAX AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT: LESSONS FROM KERALA HIGH COURT DECISION IN RE: BISWAJIT MANDAL V. NCB BY G. JAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE

1. Introduction

The Kerala High Court’s decision in B.A. No. 8581 of 2025 (Biswajit Mandal v. NCB) is a strong reaffirmation that the 24-hour rule for producing an arrested person before a magistrate—enshrined in Article 22(2) of the Constitution—is not merely a procedural formality, but a substantive safeguard of personal liberty. While the case arose under the NDPS Act, its reasoning applies equally to arrests and detentions under Customs Act,1962, GST Act,2017, and allied fiscal statutes, where enforcement agencies often exercise extensive coercive powers.

2. Core Legal Principle

The Court held that the 24-hour clock starts from the moment of effective detention—when liberty is curtailed—not from the formal time of arrest recorded in official documents.

In Biswajit Mandal, the accused was taken into custody at 3:00 PM on 25 January 2025, but the arrest was recorded only at 2:00 PM on 26 January 2025, and he was produced before a Magistrate at 8:00 PM the same day. The Court ruled that the intervening unrecorded custody was illegal detention and granted bail.

3. Key Case Laws and Their Broader Relevance

3.1. JOGINDER KUMAR Versus STATE OF UP. - 1994 (4) TMI 385 - Supreme Court

• Principle: Arrest should not be a routine step; justification is required beyond the mere existence of power.
• GST/Customs Relevance: DGGI (GST intelligence) and DRI (Customs intelligence) and field officers who exercise powers of arrest under the Acts cannot detain persons “informally” for prolonged interrogations without recording arrest. Even in complex tax evasion probes, liberty of the accused person is of  paramount importance.

3.2. SHRI DK. BASU, ASHOK K. JOHRI Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL, STATE OF UP. - 1996 (12) TMI 350 - Supreme Court

• Principle: The worst human rights violations occur during unrecorded custody; safeguards like informing relatives and producing before a magistrate are mandatory.
• GST/Customs Relevance: When officers summon taxpayers under Section 70GST Act or Section 108Customs Act, they must avoid converting a voluntary appearance into a de facto detention without recording arrest under the respective provisions of the Acts.

3.3. NIRANJAN SINGH Versus PRABHAKAR RAJARAM KHAROTE - 1980 (3) TMI 258 - Supreme Court

• Principle: Physical restraint or submission to authority constitutes custody, even if not formally arrested.
• GST/Customs Relevance: Detaining a person in an office for “statement recording” overnight without arrest memo is custody—triggering the 24-hour rule.

3.4. STATE OF UP Versus DEOMAN UPADHYAYA - 1960 (5) TMI 27 - Supreme Court

• Principle: Submission to custody can be by words or conduct; no formality required to constitute custody.
• GST/Customs Relevance: A taxpayer who is not free to leave a DGGI/DRI or other offices is already in custody for constitutional purposes.

3.5. STATE OF HARYANA Versus DINESH KUMAR - 2008 (1) TMI 411 - Supreme Court & DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT Versus DEEPAK MAHAJAN - 1994 (1) TMI 87 - Supreme Court

• Principle: Arrest means deprivation of liberty, not just formal documentation.
• GST/Customs Relevance: The substance of restraint, not the form, matters—officers cannot evade constitutional timelines by delaying paperwork.

3.6. High Court Decisions Cited

• Ashak Hussain Allah Detha Alias Versus Assistant Collector Of Customs. - 1990 (1) TMI 308 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT– specifically under Customs law, holding that detention from the time of interception triggers the 24-hour requirement.
• Smt. T. Ramadevi, W/o. T. Srinivas Goud Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary and Others - 2024 (9) TMI 1762 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT– reiterating that liberty once curtailed starts the constitutional clock.

4. Implications for Customs and GST Cases

4.1. Prevention of “Informal Custody”

In GST evasion or smuggling cases, officers often call suspects for questioning and keep them in the office for long durations before formal arrest. This judgment clarifies that such periods count towards the 24-hour limit.

4.2. Impact on Bail Petitions

Where there is delay between actual detention and formal arrest, defence counsels can argue for bail citing Biswajit Mandal, asserting illegal detention.

4.3. Departmental Accountability

Customs and GST officers must document the exact time of interception, detention, and arrest to avoid allegations of human rights violations.

4.4. Evidentiary Challenges

Statements recorded during illegal custody may be challenged as involuntary under Section 136 GST Act or Section 24 Evidence Act, citing D.K. Basu principles, even though these officers are not police officials.

5. Conclusion

The Biswajit Mandal ruling fortifies the constitutional position that liberty once curtailed must be judicially supervised within 24 hours.

For Customs and GST enforcement, it is a timely reminder that:

• Coercive powers must be exercised with strict adherence to constitutional safeguards.
• “Informal” or “off-the-record” detention is unconstitutional.
• Procedural compliance is not a technicality—it is the essence of the rule of law.

The judgment thus bridges narcotics, customs, and GST enforcement contexts, reaffirming that in fiscal investigations, as in all criminal law, the Constitution—not departmental convenience—sets the clock.