Illegal Arrest by State Tax Officer-3 Without Authority; Court Asserts Jurisdiction for Writ

The Court found the arrest made by the State Tax Officer-3 without consultation with the designated statutory authority to be illegal under the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court asserted jurisdiction to potentially issue a writ of habeas corpus and directed the respondents to provide specific documents and information for the next hearing. The judgment emphasized the importance of following legal procedures to safeguard individuals' rights and maintain the rule of law.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 69 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 regarding the authority to arrest.
2. Legality of the arrest made by the State Tax Officer-3 without consultation with the designated statutory authority.
3. Jurisdiction of the Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus based on the legality of the arrest.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by Honourable Mr. Justice S.R. Brahmbhatt addressed the issue raised by the petitioner's counsel regarding the interpretation of Section 69 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The counsel argued that while the Commissioner can delegate powers for authorization of arrest, the decision to arrest must be made by the Designated Statutory Authority and cannot be delegated contrary to the Act. The Court acknowledged this argument and noted that the arrest memo and ground of arrest indicated that the arrest was made by the State Tax Officer-3 without consultation with the designated statutory authority.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the arrest memo did not demonstrate any contemplation or decision-making process by the designated statutory authority before the arrest was carried out. The Court, therefore, found the arrest to be illegal based on the lack of involvement of the designated statutory authority in the decision-making process. Consequently, the Court asserted its jurisdiction to make appropriate orders and potentially issue a writ of habeas corpus in this matter.

In light of the above findings, the Court directed the respondents to provide certain documents and information on the next date of hearing. These included the order of authorization for the arrest, evidence of deliberation by the designated statutory authority, material considered for the arrest decision, and any other supporting material justifying the arrest. The Court emphasized the need for the respondents to address the lack of consideration by the designated statutory authority, which cast doubt on the legality of the arrest.

Overall, the judgment focused on the procedural irregularities in the arrest process, particularly the failure to involve the designated statutory authority as required by the relevant provisions of the Acts. The Court's scrutiny of the arrest memo and the decision-making process highlighted the necessity for proper adherence to legal procedures in such matters to ensure the protection of individuals' rights and uphold the rule of law.

---