Petitioner granted interim bail after 24-hour detention in GST investigation case involving blocked Input Tax Credit

The Bombay HC granted interim bail to petitioner detained for over 24 hours in a GST investigation case involving blocked Input Tax Credit. The court found the detention justification unreasonable, noting conflicting stands by authorities and that comprehensive GST investigation was already conducted in 2021. The court emphasized that arrest cannot be routine on mere allegations as it harms reputation and self-esteem. Petitioner was released on Rs. 25,000 cash bail for six weeks with conditions to furnish PR bond and sureties. The case was listed for admission hearing.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this judgment include the quashing and setting aside of the petitioner's arrest by the respondent No. 3-Inspector u/s Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaration of the arrest as illegal and contrary to law, and the request for interim cash bail / regular bail.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Arrest and Detention
The petitioner sought the quashing of his arrest by the respondent No. 3-Inspector, CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai, and a declaration that the arrest was illegal. The petitioner's counsel argued that the arrest was made in an old case of 2021, where the Company had already paid taxes and cooperated with authorities. The counsel highlighted contradictions in the respondent No. 2's explanations for the delay in producing the petitioner before the Magistrate. The High Court found that the petitioner appeared to have been detained for more than 24 hours without proper justification, and criticized the practice of keeping a person overnight under the guise of recording a statement. The Court granted interim bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of protecting citizens' liberty.

Issue 2: Legal Proceedings
The respondent No. 2 claimed that they did not have ready copies of the GST returns for the year 2024 and had to download them, resulting in a delay in producing the petitioner. The Court observed that the process of generating relevant GST returns, verification, and arrest memo took several hours, but found no valid reason for the overnight detention of the petitioner. The Court criticized the respondent No. 2 for not calling the petitioner on another day if documents were not available, stating that arrest should not be made in a routine manner based on mere allegations.

Conclusion:
The High Court granted interim bail to the petitioner, highlighting the importance of protecting individual liberty and ensuring that arrests are not made arbitrarily. The Court criticized the practice of detaining individuals overnight without proper justification and emphasized the need for authorities to act responsibly in such matters. The case was listed for further proceedings on a specified date.

---