Facts of the Case:

In this case, the petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus challenging his arrest, detention and remand under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, pursuant to proceedings initiated by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). On 29.12.2025, officers conducted a search at the petitioner’s residential premises under Section 67 of the CGST Act. Subsequently, on 16.01.2026, the petitioner was arrested under Section 69 of the Act. It was alleged that at the time of arrest, only an arrest memo and search memo were handed over, without annexures. The petitioner contended that neither the “grounds of arrest” nor the “reasons to believe” recorded by the Commissioner were supplied to him at the time of arrest.

The petitioner relied heavily upon the Supreme Court judgment in Radhika Agrawal, which emphasized compliance with procedural safeguards in GST arrests, and also relied on Satender Kumar Antil, laying down guidelines regarding arrest in offences punishable up to seven years. It was further contended that Instruction No. 02/2022-23 dated 17.08.2022 and Instruction dated 13.01.2025 mandated furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing as an annexure to the arrest memo.

The respondents argued that “reasons to believe” are internal documents and need not be supplied to the accused. They further contended that Section 69 only requires the Commissioner to record reasons to believe, and not to serve the same upon the accused. It was also argued that the vires of Section 69 had already been upheld in Radhika Agrawal, and that the petitioner was duly served with grounds of arrest prior to remand.

Issue:

Whether the writ of habeas corpus was maintainable after remand by the Magistrate. Whether “reasons to believe” under Section 69 CGST Act are required to be supplied to the arrested person. Whether non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest in compliance with statutory instructions renders the arrest and remand illegal.

Held that:

The Court on the question of “reasons to believe”, held that Section 69 requires the Commissioner to record reasons to believe explicitly with reference to material and evidence. However, the statute does not mandate supply of the recorded “reasons to believe” to the accused. The observations in Radhika Agrawal regarding furnishing of “reasons to believe” were made in the context of the PMLA and cannot be mechanically applied to GST arrests. Therefore, the contention that non-supply of “reasons to believe” vitiated the arrest was rejected.

However, with regard to “grounds of arrest”, the Court found serious infirmity. As per Instruction dated 13.01.2025, grounds of arrest must not only be explained but also furnished in writing as an annexure to the arrest memo, and acknowledgement must be obtained. In the present case, the arrest memo did not mention any annexure. The remand order did not clearly record that written grounds were furnished before production before the Magistrate.

In view of this factual discrepancy and non-compliance with the mandatory instruction requiring written supply of grounds of arrest, the Court held that procedural safeguards were violated. The remand order failed to demonstrate compliance with the mandate of law. Further, the Court agreed that the principles laid down in Satender Kumar Antil apply even to special statutes like the CGST Act. Arrest should not be routine, especially where offences are punishable up to seven years, and necessity of arrest must be justified.

Accordingly, the Court held that the remand order suffered from legal infirmity and was unsustainable.

Case Name: Jai Kumar Aggarwal Versus Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence And 3 Others dated 13.02.2026