GST arrest scrutiny turns on reasons to believe, statutory safeguards, and bona fide medical necessity before Magistrate production.

Writ interference with arrest under GST law was confined to exceptional cases of mala fide, extraneous considerations, or clear breach of statutory procedure. On the materials described, the authority had search records, statements, and contemporaneous reasons to believe showing a prima facie case of large-scale GST evasion, so the arrest was treated as lawful. The custody objection based on non-production before the Magistrate within 24 hours also failed because the delay was explained by the need for medical treatment at a higher centre, and no challenge was made to the remand order. The note emphasises substantial compliance with statutory safeguards and bona fide medical necessity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the arrest under section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was vitiated for want of statutory safeguards, absence of adequate material, or non-application of mind in recording reasons to believe; (ii) Whether the grievance regarding non-production before the Magistrate within 24 hours rendered the custody illegal.

Issue (i): Whether the arrest under section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was vitiated for want of statutory safeguards, absence of adequate material, or non-application of mind in recording reasons to believe.

Analysis: The challenge to arrest was tested on the settled principle that writ interference in arrest matters is warranted only in exceptional cases of mala fide, extraneous considerations, or clear breach of statutory procedure. The record disclosed search material, statements of persons involved, and contemporaneous grounds of arrest showing a prima facie case of large-scale GST evasion through parallel accounts and electronic records. The Court found that the authorities had material to form the requisite belief and that the arrest was not a mere fishing enquiry or suspicion-based action.

Conclusion: The arrest was held to be in accordance with law and the challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the grievance regarding non-production before the Magistrate within 24 hours rendered the custody illegal.

Analysis: The Court accepted the explanation that the arrested person had to be moved for medical treatment to a higher medical centre in view of his health condition. In those circumstances, immediate production before the Magistrate was found not to be a legally warranted course. The Court also noted the absence of a challenge to the remand order and held that the custody objection could not succeed on the facts presented.

Conclusion: The custody was not held illegal on the ground of non-production within 24 hours.

Final Conclusion: No interference was called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction, and the petition was rejected on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: An arrest under the GST law will not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction where the authority has relevant material, records reasons to believe, and complies substantially with the statutory safeguards; a custody objection based on delayed production fails where immediate production is impracticable for bona fide medical reasons.

---