TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 383
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se the corpus/petitioner from their illegal custody while declaring the arrest, detention and subsequent remand of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary null and void. IA. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and to quash and set aside the impugned remand order dated 31.1.2026 (Annexure-16 to the amended writ petition) as well as any subsequent remand order/s as being illegal. II. Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case. III. Award the cost of the petition. 3. The brief facts of the petition are that the entire controversy emanates out of an investigation/ inquiry initiated by DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit in relation to alleged availment of fraudulent I.T.C as well as fake invoices being generated without supply of goods by M/s. NTEXX Textile Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Shri Ram Sales Corporation and M/s. Shri Balaji Sales. In relation to the abovementioned investigation, a search of the premises at M-180, Gali No.11, Shashtri Nagar, Indarlok Metro Station, West Delhi of M/s. NTEXX Textile (P) Ltd., M/s. Shri Balaj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement before the DGGI, Regional Unit Ghaziabad at 6:00 PM on 29.01.2026. The petitioner was already in the custody of the DGGI Officials, Meerut Zonal Unitsince 29.1.2026 in Delhi and the petitioner was illegally detained by the revenue officials and thereafter the Petitioner was taken from Delhi to NOIDA, District Gautam Buddha Nagar on 29.1.2026 itself. 6. However, only on 30.01.2026 at about 3.53 PM the petitioner is shown to have been arrested under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017. The arrest memo dated 30.01.2026 and Grounds of Arrest dated 30.01.2026 were only then provided to the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 had filed an Application seeking Remand of the Petitioner before the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut on 31.1.2026 even though the Petitioner was actually. arrested on 29.1.2026 from Delhi but shown to be arrested from Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar on 30.1.2026 and thereafter produced before the learned Magistrate at Meerut without seeking and transit remand or informing the local police station, which is illegal and arbitrary and violative of the settled law. Application for Remand came to be allowed by the Learned Magistrate granting judic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f arrest and is neither an independent witness. The "reasons to believe" issued by the concerned Commissioner have not been provided to the petitioner till date, which itself is a grave violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and violates the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as laid down in the case of Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India reported in (2025) 5 SCC 545. 8. The non-supply of the reasons to believe as well as the fact that the illegal arrest and detention of the Petitioner being done during search proceedings itself demonstrates that no reasons to believe exists and even if the same does exist, there cannot be any application of mind since the entire exercise of illegal detention of the petitioner itself demonstrates the extreme haste and urgency in arresting the Petitioner with a predetermined mind. The same is evident from the fact that on 29.1.2026 the petitioner was detained in Delhi in the evening when the search only concluded at 7:45 PM thereafter the statement of the Petitioner was allegedly recorded on 29.1.2026 and he was taken to Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar and ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itional District Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Meerut. 13. The arrest of the petitioner is completely illegal and malafide and all subsequent proceedings including the remand of the petitioner stands vitiated solely on the ground that the petitioner though being detained on 29.01.2026 was never produced before the concerned Magistrate within 24 hours and was only produced before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut on 31.01.2026 which is violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India as well as Section 58 of BNSS, 2023. 14. The Petitioner not being produced before the concerned jurisdictional magistrate within 24 hours of being detained / arrest is illegal and a violation of the Instruction No. 2/2022-23 issued by GST Investigation Wing wherein guidelines for arrest and bail in relation to offences under the CGST Act, 2017 have been provided. 15. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51 have been gravely violated by the concerned Revenue Officials inasmuch as the necessity of arrest has not been satisfied and neither has the Le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.2026 is contrary to the settled principle of law that at the time of Remand the Magistrate has to consider the material on record and apply his judicial mind to conclude whether the arrest of the detenue was legal or not. However, in the present case, neither any material on record has been considered nor any finding has been returned as to whether the arrest of the petitioner was illegal or not. Therefore, the impugned Remand Order dated 31.1.2026 is manifestly illegal, unreasoned, void-ab-initio and liable to be set aside and the arrest of the Petitioner is liable to be quashed. 21. It is very much evident from the Statement of Petitioner itself that the same was recorded on 29.1.2026 at Delhi and therefore, there was no need or jurisdiction for the petitioner to travel to Noida or Meerut. Furthermore, if the arrest was based upon the statement of the Petitioner, then, such arrest ought to have taken place at the place of recording of statement of the Petitioner i.e. Delhi and not Noida. 22. the statement of the Petitioner which itself demonstrates that the same was recorded on 29.1.2026 at Delhi, has not been considered by the Learned Magistrate while passing the impugne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, judgment dated 9th May, 2013, S.C. CrA(730/2013) wherein it was held that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be viewed seriously. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin Johari, Judgment dated 12th September 2019 S.C. (Cr.A No.1381 of 2019), has emphasized that in cases involving economic offences, the magnitude of the offence and its impact on society are relevant considerations, and such offences require a stringent approach. 26. The powers of arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 have been validly exercised in the present case, strictly in accordance with law, after due formation of "reason to believe" based on credible material including documentary evidence, electronic records, and Shri Nitin Aggarwal's own voluntary statement. The constitutional validity and procedural safeguards relating to arrest under fiscal statutes have been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India (Supra), wherein it has been held that arrest is permissible where supported by material evidence and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is that the petitioner voluntarily appeared alongwith his son, Shri Garvit Aggarwal, after coming from Delhi to Noida Office of respondents in response to the summons. The arrest of the petitioner was affected only on 30.1.2026 as per the provisions of Section 69 of CGST Act and he was supplied with the "arrest memo" and "grounds of arrest". 31. A perusal of the arrest memo of the petitioner shows that there is clear violation of the Clause 4.2.1 of the guidelines for arrest and bail considered hereinabove, which provides that the "grounds of arrest" should be furnished to the arrested person in writing as Annexure to the arrest memo and acknowledgment of the same should be taken from the arrested person at the time of service of "arrest memo". The perusal of the arrest memo of the petitioner, brought on record as Annexure no.7 to the Habeas Corpus Petition, clearly shows that there is no mention of any annexure of "grounds of arrest" in the "arrest memo" as per the departmental instructions considered hereinabove. The receipt of "grounds of arrest" is recorded on the arrest memo, but there is no signature of the petitioner below the same. It has been mentioned in the receipt t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... information to his son was also not given at the time of the arrest of the petitioner. Since in the arrest memo of the petitioner, petitioner has mentioned that let his son be informed about his arrest, hence his son was not clearly informed about his arrest, when his arrest was effected. 34. The next argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was arrested from Delhi and without taking any transit remand he was taken to Noida and then after illegal detention for more than 24 hours, without taking any transit remand, he was produced before Remand Magistrate appears to be credible argument. Even if the argument of the learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4 is assumed to be correct that the petitioner was called from Delhi in response to summons then he should have been permitted to return to Delhi, which was not done. He was detained at Noida without any transit remand taken from Delhi court which is clear violation of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Priya Indoria Vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2024) 4 SCC 749. 35. We have further found that in the "grounds of arrest" brought on record as Annexure No.CA-2 to the counter affidavit by respon....