Habeas corpus is unavailable against custody under a subsisting judicial remand order unless the remand itself is challenged.

A writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable where the detenue remains in custody under a subsisting judicial remand order passed by a competent court; the legality of that custody cannot be questioned in a writ petition unless the remand order itself is first challenged and set aside. The challenge based on non-compliance with Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 also failed because the record showed that the authorisation had been issued by the competent authority, removing the basis for alleging unlawful detention. The petition was therefore dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of habeas corpus was maintainable when the detenue was in custody pursuant to a judicial remand order, and whether the detention could be challenged on the ground of non-compliance with Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The Court relied on the principle that habeas corpus does not lie where a person is in custody under an order of a court of competent jurisdiction, and that the legality of such custody cannot be questioned by a writ petition without first assailing the remand order. The record also showed that the authorization under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had been passed by the competent authority, removing the factual for the plea of unlawful detention.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the challenge to detention failed.

Final Conclusion: Custody pursuant to a subsisting judicial order could not be disturbed through habeas corpus, and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable against custody pursuant to a subsisting judicial remand order of a competent court, unless that order itself is challenged and set aside.

---