Court Orders Immediate Release Due to Illegal Arrest (1)

The court found the arrest to be illegal due to non-compliance with Section 69(1) of the Act and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court ordered the immediate release of the individual unless needed for another offense, while allowing State Authorities to take lawful action.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the arrest under Section 69 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Authority and delegation of power by the Commissioner under Section 69(1) of the Act.
3. Compliance with Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. Maintainability of the habeas corpus petition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Arrest:
The petitioner argued that the arrest of his father by the State Tax Officer was without authority of law as per Section 69(1) of the Act. The court noted that Section 69(1) stipulates two functions: the Commissioner must have reasons to believe that an offence has been committed, and then he may authorize an officer to arrest the person. The court found that the satisfaction required by the Commissioner was not recorded, making the arrest illegal.

2. Authority and Delegation of Power:
The petitioner contended that the Joint Commissioner, who authorized the arrest, was not the competent authority to do so without the Commissioner’s satisfaction. The court examined the delegation order dated 23.06.2017 and the corrigendum dated 17.12.2018. It concluded that the Commissioner had only delegated the power to authorize arrests, not the authority to arrive at the satisfaction required under Section 69(1). Thus, the Joint Commissioner’s satisfaction was without authority of law.

3. Compliance with Article 21:
The court emphasized that any deprivation of personal liberty without following the procedure established by law violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Since the arrest did not comply with the statutory requirements, it was deemed a violation of Article 21, rendering the judicial custody of the corpus illegal.

4. Maintainability of the Habeas Corpus Petition:
The State argued that the petition was not maintainable because the corpus was in judicial custody. The court rejected this argument, citing that even if a person is in judicial custody, the legality of the custody can be challenged if it violates statutory provisions. The court referred to previous judgments to support the maintainability of the habeas corpus petition in cases of illegal confinement.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the arrest was illegal due to non-compliance with Section 69(1) of the Act and violation of Article 21. It ordered the immediate release of the corpus unless he was required in any other offence, while reserving liberty to the State Authorities to take appropriate legal action in accordance with the law.

---