CGST arrest powers require necessity and concrete risk; continued custody was unjustified where no tampering or witness influence was shown.

Section 69 CGST arrest requires the Commissioner to have reasons to believe that a specified offence has been committed and that arrest is necessary. The HC noted that the petitioners had repeatedly appeared before investigators, their statements were recorded, and there was no demonstrated attempt to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. Mere apprehension of future interference was insufficient to justify continued custody, especially where there was no prior formal accusation in the form of an FIR or complaint. On those facts, the arrest and detention were held unjustified and release was directed on conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners' arrest under section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and their continued detention were justified in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The power to arrest under section 69 is conditioned on the Commissioner having reasons to believe that the person has committed one of the specified offences and that arrest is necessary. The alleged offence under section 132(1)(b) and (c) carried a maximum sentence of five years, and the petitioners had repeatedly appeared before the investigating authorities and their statements had been recorded on several occasions. On the material before the Court, there was no demonstrated attempt by the petitioners to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, and apprehensions of future interference could not by themselves justify continued custody. The Court also noticed that there was no formal accusation prior to arrest in the form of an FIR or complaint and that the manner in which remand was sought indicated an overbroad approach to detention.

Conclusion: The arrest and continued detention were not justified on the facts placed before the Court, and release was directed on conditions.

---