TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1903
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notice to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the revenue prays for and is allowed two weeks' time to obtain instructions. List on 23.07.2026." 3. When the matter was taken up on the adjourned date i.e. 23.07,2026, notice of motion was issued. Thereafter, the writ petition was heard on 22.09.2026 and on behalf of the respondents, it was stated that the petitioner is not cooperating with the GST authorities in the investigation. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner had stated that all documents demanded by the respondents have already been furnished and the petitioner has already appeared before the authorities on several occasions and the allegations of non-cooperation on the part of the petitioner, are factually incorrect. In the light of respective stands taken by the parties, this Court proceeded to pass the following order on 22.09.2026:- "Faced with the objection raised by learned counsel for the revenue that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall appear before the Adjudicating Authorities tomorrow at 11:00 AM. If the petitioner does so and furnishes re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respondents in issuing summons by ante-timing the DIN is in teeth of the Circular dated 23.12.2019. It is urged that the arrest could not have been made after sun-set and detaining the petitioner from 11:00 am on 23.09.2026 and showing his arrest at 4:45 am on 24.09.2026, is a brazen act of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also highlighted that the manner in which the authorities have acted by showing scant regard to the orders passed by the Court, speaks volumes about the approach of the authorities. 6. Mr. Naman Jain, appearing for the revenue states that since there was no order staying the arrest of the petitioner and his anticipatory bail was already rejected, therefore, the action of the respondents in arresting the petitioner suffers from no illegality. 7. We are not impressed by the plea taken by the respondents inasmuch as this Court was already ceased of the matter and had directed the petitioner to appear at 11:00 am on 23.09.2026, with an intent to secure cooperation in the investigation. The matter was adjourned to 29.09.2026, by when the authorities were to inform the Court with regard to complain of non-cooperation on the part of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by this Court in CWP-18184-2026. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Pursuant to orders passed in pre-lunch session, the Officer who has authorized the arrest of the petitioner as also the Officer who has issued the summons, have appeared and tried to justify their action of arresting the petitioner on the ground that his statement was recorded when he appeared on 23.09.2026, at 11:00 am, pursuant to orders passed by this Court and since his replies were evasive, as such, the competent authority took the decision to arrest the petitioner. 5. In the facts of the case, we find the action of the respondents department to be a brazen act of highhandedness where the constitutional safeguards available to a citizen have not been adhered to. As has already been noticed by us in the pre-lunch session, the firm had already approached this Court challenging the attachment of its bank account on the ground that no show cause notice was issued and opportunity of personal hearing was denied. 6. The said writ petition was entertained and orders were passed from time to time. When the matter was taken up on 22.09.2026, an objection was taken by the counsel for the res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppearance was 12:05 pm, then the DIN ought to have been issued sometime prior to 12:05 pm. In case there was any bona fide apprehension on the part of the respondents with regard to the petitioner, it was for the authorities to have apprised such facts to the Court on the date fixed i.e. 29.09.2026. 10. The undue hot haste shown by the authorities in issuing summons on 23.09.2026, after the petitioner had appeared before the authorities and showing his arrest at 4:45 am in the next morning on 24.09.2026, prima-facie is an act of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. So far as the reasons to believe are concerned, the authorization to arrest contains the following reasons:- (i) to prevent him from committing any further offence under the CGST Act, 2017. (ii) to ensure proper and unhindered investigation of the case; and (iii) to prevent him from tampering with evidence, or from making any inducement, threat or promise to any witness so as to dissuade such witness from disclosing the true facts before the investigating authority. 11. Prima-facie we find the reasons for authorizing petitioner's arrest to be wholly misplaced inasmuch as ....