TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1005
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uashing the arrest memo dated 04.12.2025 issued in Complaint Case No.4596 of 2025 pending before the Court of Special Judge, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur in exercise of power conferred under Section 69 of Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as 'CGST Act, 2017') punishable under Section 132(1)(a), 132(a)(f) and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. Petitioner is one of the partners of partnership firm M/s Shubh Laxmi Traders, Daltonganj which is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of iron ore and is registered under the provisions of CGST Act, 2017 bearing GSTIN 20ADVFS3446E1Z1. An official complaint was lodged by Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Regional Unit, Jamshedpur at the Special Court, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur which was registered as Complaint Case No.4596 of 2025 against this petitioner on 05.12.2025. 3. Gravamen of allegation against the petitioner is that specific intelligence was received of large-scale evasion of GST by M/s Shubh Laxmi Traders and accordingly, raid was conducted at multiple places of the said firm on 02.12.2025 which continued till 04.12.2025 under the provision of Section 67(2) o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the point of cooperation, it is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that there was full cooperation on his part which will be apparent from the Panchnama at Annexure-2 series, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner had cooperated during investigation (page 60 & 62 and page 89 of the compilation). Reliance is placed on 2026 MPHC - Gwl Page 442. 8. It is argued that the challenge to arrest in the present case has been necessitated to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for the reason that there is a breach of statutory provision of arrest outlined under Section 69 read with Section 132 of the CGST Act. When the authorities act in breach of the statutory safeguards, the person arrested has a remedy under the writ jurisdiction in view of ratio laid down in Radhika Agarwal (supra) case para 84 to 95. 9. Lastly, it is argued that after the said arrest, the petitioner was not produced before the Special Court within 24 hours. The non-production of arrested person is violative of Article 22 of the Constitution of India read with Section 187 of B.N.S.S. making the custody illegal. 10. It is argued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Jamshedpur. 13. It is argued that legality of custody cannot be challenged unless and until the order of remand is also challenged. In this case although the arrest and custody have been assailed, but the order of remand is not under challenge. 14. With regard to the scope of judicial review, while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Radhika Agarwal case (supra) again to be referred specifically to para 91 to 95. 15. So far as the spot summon and midnight interrogation are concerned, it is submitted that it is factually incorrect which will be apparent from perusal of the summon and spot summon (Annexure-3 series of the writ petition). In the summon dated 02.12.2025 addressed to Roshan Kumar, the time for appearance has been stated to be 7:30 pm, whereas in the summon dated 03.12.2025 to Pramod Kumar Agarwal, the time for appearance is 3:30 pm at his premises and in both these summons, the place of interrogation is not the office of Director General of GST Intelligence, but the office of Subhalakshmi Traders where the raid was conducted which is business premises of the petitioner. In order to substantiate this plea, paras 15 and 16 of the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 22 together, it is very clear that the Constitution permits both punitive and preventive detention provided it is according to the procedure established by law made for the purpose, and if both the law and the procedure laid down by the law, are valid. 86. Whenever the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court is invoked under Article 226 or Article 32 as the case may be, challenging the punitive or preventive detention, the Court is expected to take into consideration the nature of right infringed, the scope and object of the legislation under which such arrest or detention is made, the need to balance the rights and interests of the individual as against those of the society, the circumstances under which and the persons by whom the jurisdiction is invoked, etc. In exercise of their discretionary jurisdiction, the High Courts and the Supreme Court do not, as courts of appeal or revision, correct errors of law or of facts. The judicial intervention is warranted only in exceptional circumstances when the arrest is prima facie found to be mala fide; or is prompted by extraneous circumstances, or is made in contravention of or in breach of provisions of the statut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisions of the FA where an assessee had been regularly filing service tax returns which have been accepted by the ST Department, it was difficult to imagine that without the commencement of the process of adjudication of penalty in terms of section 83A of the FA, another agency like the DGCEI can without an SCN or enquiry or investigation straightway go ahead to make an arrest merely on the suspicion of evasion of service tax or failure to deposit service tax that has been collected. However, where a person is shown to be a habitual evader of service tax. Such person would have to be one who has not filed a service tax return for a continuous length of time, who has a history of repeated defaults for which there have been fines, penalties imposed and prosecutions launched, etc then the arrest may be justified. 19. In Radhika Agarwal (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court has held that to a large extent, the ratio on the applicability of the Code to the Customs Act would equally apply to the GST Acts in view of section 4 and 5 of the Code. However it has been held in no uncertain term in para-61 of this case that even without a formal order of assessment, the Department/Revenue is certain ....