TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1726
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd custody of the petitioner as unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary and consequently directing that the petitioner be released forthwith. ii. To issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing and setting aside, the order dated 1.11.2025 passed by the C.J.M., Meerut in case no. 1057 of 2025 under sections 132(1)(b),132(1) (c) & 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act and all the consequential pro proceedings arising thereof. Iii To issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner had filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 26628 of 2025 which he had withdraw on 8.5.2026. He has further submitted that ground of arrest of the petitioner was not annexed with arrest memo. The first illegality is that the alleged Grounds of Arrest were not made an annexure to the Arrest Memo annexed at Page 49 to the Writ Petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India, (2025) 6 SCC 545, while dealing with arrest under the GST regime, has categorically stated it is mandatory req....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry as per the Department's own circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated 23.12.2019, and in the absence of DIN on any document, the same shall be treated as never been issued. 7. There were no Grounds of Arrest at the time of arrest of the Petitioner. This is clear from the fact that neither the Grounds of Arrest were made as an annexure nor it bears the mandatory DIN. The Grounds of Arrest were not even furnished to the wife, Mrs. Parul Goel at the time of arrest or even before remand. Neither Arrest Memo nor grounds of arrest bears the signature of her. Rather, it was sent by post to her and was received on 08.11.2025. At best, even as per the Respondents' own document, the wife was merely "informed" about the arrest, which can never be equated with furnishing of the written grounds of arrest. Also, there is no mention in the note allegedly written by the Arrestee on the Arrest memo in the own handwriting that the Grounds of Arrest were furnished to the wife of the Petitioner also makes it clear that Grounds of Arrest were never served to his wife. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269, has clearly held that communication o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the accused before the Court. A mere recital that the amount involved is above Rs. 5 crores, or that the Petitioner is allegedly a mastermind, does not satisfy the mandatory requirement of recording necessity of arrest. 11. Thus, the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, was duty-bound to examine whether the Respondents had complied with the mandatory safeguards relating to arrest, including Section 48(1) BNSS, communication of grounds of arrest, service upon the nominated family member. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut could not have mechanically authorized judicial custody without satisfying itself that the arrest was lawful and that the constitutional safeguards had been strictly complied with in compliance of Section 48(4) BNSS. 12. There is no proper reason to believe" furnished to the Petitioner. The requirement of "reason to believe" to be furnished is not an empty formality and the same is evident form the letter bearing No. DGGI/INV/MISC407/2024-ADD/JD-I[-0/o Pr DG-DGGI-HQ-Delhi, dated24.06.2025. The Letter brings out as follows: "In view of the above, it is hereby directed that in addition to furnishing and explaining "grounds of arrest", "re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mand order was passed by Remand Magistrate after proper application of mind. The judgement of co-accused, Hari Shankar Sharma, passed in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No, 369 of 2026 has no application to the present case. Petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and during the pendency of the same, he has filed present habeas corpus writ petition, wherein remand order cannot be considered. 16. After hearing the rival submissions and considering averments made in the counter affidavit brought on record by learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2, we find that there is no mention of any annexure of "grounds of arrest" in the "arrest memo". The "grounds of arrest" has been separately filed in the counter affidavit with endorsement of the petitioner that he has received the same. As per the circular issued by the CGST Department No.02 of 2022-2023 dated 11.3.2025, every document generated through the system is required to bear a separate CBIC-DIN. However, in the present case, no DIN is mentioned on the grounds of arrest, nor it has been shown to be annexed with the arrest memo. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit....