GST arrest safeguards and habeas corpus: reasons to believe must be supplied in substance, but minor form defects may not invalidate custody.

A writ of habeas corpus may be maintainable even after a judicial remand where the challenge is to the legality of detention for breach of a mandatory statutory safeguard. Under GST arrest powers, the Commissioner must record reasons to believe on the basis of material before authorising arrest, and those reasons are a jurisdictional safeguard ordinarily to be furnished for judicial review. On the facts, the reasons recorded were supplied in substance, and the absence of a verbatim signed copy did not invalidate the arrest or the remand proceedings because no material variance or illegality in detention was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus was maintainable to question detention pursuant to a judicial remand order. (ii) Whether non-supply of the verbatim reasons to believe recorded for authorising arrest under the GST law vitiated the arrest and the remand proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus was maintainable to question detention pursuant to a judicial remand order.

Analysis: A writ of habeas corpus lies where detention is illegal or where there is total non-compliance with mandatory statutory safeguards or lack of jurisdiction. A remand order passed by a Magistrate is ordinarily tested through statutory remedies, but where the challenge is to the legality of detention itself for breach of a statutory mandate, the extraordinary jurisdiction may be invoked.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether non-supply of the verbatim reasons to believe recorded for authorising arrest under the GST law vitiated the arrest and the remand proceedings.

Analysis: The power to arrest under section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is conditioned on the Commissioner recording reasons to believe on the basis of material and then authorising arrest. Those reasons to believe are jurisdictional safeguards and are ordinarily required to be furnished to enable challenge to the arrest, though limited redaction may be justified in exceptional cases. On the facts, the record showed that the reasons to believe recorded at the administrative level were supplied in substance to the petitioner, and the supplied document was not materially at variance with the reasons recorded in the file.

Conclusion: Non-supply of a verbatim signed copy did not vitiate the arrest or the remand proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to arrest and judicial custody failed, as the statutory preconditions were found to have been complied with in substance and no illegality in detention was established.

Ratio Decidendi: In challenges to arrest under section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the reasons to believe are a jurisdictional safeguard that must ordinarily be furnished to the arrestee for judicial review, but minor differences in form do not invalidate the arrest if the substance of the recorded reasons has been supplied and no prejudice is shown.

---