https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414799 Arrest under Section 69(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the filing of a complaint under Section 132 meant the detenue's custody could not be treated as unlawful for habeas corpus purposes. The note also records that the default bail application under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had already been dismissed and the challenge to that order was withdrawn. On that footing, no interference with the refusal of default bail was warranted, and relief against continued custody was unavailable absent illegal confinement. en-us Thu, 28 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Mar 2025 11:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414799 Arrest under Section 69(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the filing of a complaint under Section 132 meant the detenue's custody could not be treated as unlawful for habeas corpus purposes. The note also records that the default bail application under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had already been dismissed and the challenge to that order was withdrawn. On that footing, no interference with the refusal of default bail was warranted, and relief against continued custody was unavailable absent illegal confinement. Case-Laws GST Thu, 28 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414799