Facts of the Case

Barkha Bansal filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, seeking the release of her husband, Bharat Lal Garg, from the custody of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Chandigarh Zonal Unit, alleging illegal detention. The detenue had been summoned by DGGI officials in connection with an investigation under the CGST Act, 2017, kept at the zonal office for over 30 hours, interrogated overnight, and eventually arrested under Section 69 of the CGST Act. An earlier detailed order dated 18.07.2025 had already declared the arrest illegal after examining Supreme Court and High Court precedent, and the present hearing on 30.07.2025 dealt with the department's compliance affidavit and closing directions before Justice Harpreet Singh Brar.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the detenue's arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act was vitiated for want of a Document Identification Number (DIN) and mechanical authorization by the designated officer.
  2. Whether prolonged, overnight informal custody and interrogation without a cognizable offence being made out violated Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
  3. Whether the DGGI's explanation for non-functional CCTV cameras and delayed production of records before the Court was acceptable.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The detenue was kept in DGGI custody overnight for over 30 hours and subjected to prolonged interrogation without any cognizable offence having been made out against him, amounting to informal, coercive detention.
  • The authorization to arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act was granted mechanically, on the ipse dixit of the Intelligence Officer, without independent application of mind, and the communication did not carry a DIN as mandated by CBIC Circular No.128/47/2019-GST.
  • The grounds of arrest were not supplied to the detenue with any urgency, and CCTV surveillance requirements laid down in Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh were not complied with at the material time.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Additional Director General filed an affidavit explaining that CCTV cameras had been installed and were generally functional, but became temporarily non-operational due to construction work, and tendered an unconditional apology for the resultant lapses and for delayed production of records before the Court.
  • It was contended that proceedings under Section 70 of the CGST Act are judicial in nature, DGGI officials are not equivalent to police, and the detenue's statement was recorded voluntarily and has not been retracted.

Court Order / Findings

  • Relying on its own detailed earlier order dated 18.07.2025 — which in turn applied Radhika Agarwal vs. Union of India, Mahesh Devchand Gala vs. Union of India, and Agarwal Foundries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India — the Court had already found that DGGI officials failed to supply the detenue with 'reasons to believe' necessitating arrest and that the authorization lacked a DIN, rendering it invalid per CBIC circulars.
  • The Court held that the mechanical grant of arrest authorization without application of mind, absence of a DIN on the communication, and failure to promptly furnish grounds of arrest rendered the arrest illegal and non est in law, following Radhika Agarwal and Arvind Kejriwal.
  • On the present hearing, the Court accepted the department's explanation regarding the CCTV lapse and unconditional apology, while cautioning that such conduct should not recur and directing full cooperation with Court-appointed officers in future.
  • The petition was allowed and jail authorities were directed to release the petitioner's husband forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Important Clarification

  • An arrest authorization under Section 69 of the CGST Act that lacks a Document Identification Number (DIN), as mandated by CBIC Circular No.128/47/2019-GST, is deemed never to have been issued and is invalid.
  • Mechanical authorization of arrest based merely on an Intelligence Officer's proposal, without independent application of mind by the designated officer, vitiates the arrest as suffering from incurable illegality.
  • Persons summoned by DGGI are entitled to have statements recorded during office hours, under CCTV surveillance if requested, and in the presence of counsel (within sight but outside hearing range), per binding precedent.

Sections Involved

  • Section 69, CGST Act, 2017 — empowers arrest of a person on authorization by the Commissioner where specified offences are believed to have been committed; the authorization here was found mechanical and DIN-less.
  • Section 70, CGST Act, 2017 — empowers summoning of persons for evidence and production of documents, invoked as the basis for the detenue's interrogation.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the assessee/detenue. The arrest was held illegal for lacking a valid, DIN-bearing authorization and reflecting mechanical decision-making, and immediate release was ordered.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Case No.: CRWP-6077-2025 (O&M)
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Date of Decision: 30.07.2025

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.