TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the grounds of arrest were properly communicated and explained to the accused. (ii) Whether the safeguards under Section 41 and Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 were required to be followed before arrest under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Issue (i): Whether the grounds of arrest were properly communicated and explained to the accused.
Analysis: The arrest memo recorded the accused's written acknowledgment that the grounds of arrest had been explained to him. On that basis, the Court found that the communication of grounds of arrest was not a mere formality and had been duly made.
Conclusion: The grounds of arrest were properly communicated and explained.
Issue (ii): Whether the safeguards under Section 41 and Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 were required to be followed before arrest under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Analysis: The Court treated the alleged offence as punishable up to five years and applied the arrest-safeguard jurisprudence requiring compliance with statutory pre-arrest protections. It relied on the view that the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 does not exclude the operation of these safeguards and that the power of arrest under Section 69 must be exercised consistently with them. Since such compliance was not shown, the arrest was held to be unlawful.
Conclusion: The safeguards had to be followed and were not complied with.
Final Conclusion: The arrest was held illegal and the accused was ordered to be released from custody forthwith, with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with the required procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: Where arrest under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is sought for an offence punishable up to seven years, the statutory safeguards governing arrest and notice before arrest must be complied with, and non-compliance renders the arrest unlawful.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
