Facts of the Case:

In this case, the petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus challenging his arrest, detention, remand, and continued custody in connection with proceedings initiated by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) under Sections 132(1)(a), 132(1)(f), and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner also sought quashing of the remand order dated 18 February 2026 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.

The petitioner contended that the arrest was fundamentally illegal as neither the arrest memo nor any annexure supplied to him contained the specific grounds of arrest. Although the arrest memo stated that the grounds of arrest had been explained, there was no indication that the grounds had been furnished in writing. It was further argued that the arrest memo contained several procedural deficiencies, including blank columns in the personal search (jama talashi) memo, on which the petitioner’s signatures had nevertheless been obtained. The petitioner also alleged that the remand magistrate failed to examine these irregularities before granting judicial remand.

The respondents filed a counter affidavit but failed to place any material on record to establish compliance with the statutory and procedural requirements governing arrest under the GST law.

Issue:

Whether the arrest and detention of the petitioner were valid when the arrest memo did not disclose the specific grounds of arrest and there was no proof of written communication of such grounds to the arrestee. Whether the absence of a CBIC-DIN on the grounds of arrest rendered the arrest proceedings illegal.

Held That:

The High Court held that the arrest and detention of the petitioner were illegal and unconstitutional. On examining the arrest memo, the Court found that it did not disclose the place of arrest, which was contrary to the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal. The Court further noted that while the petitioner had been made to endorse receipt of the arrest memo and grounds of arrest, the respondents failed to establish that the statutory requirements relating to communication of grounds of arrest had been duly complied with.

The Court also found merit in the petitioner’s contention that the grounds of arrest dated 10 December 2025 did not bear a CBIC-DIN. The respondents were unable to controvert the argument that, in terms of Circular No. 02/2022-2023 dated 11 March 2025, departmental documents were required to bear a CBIC-DIN. The absence of such identification number on the grounds of arrest constituted a violation of the prescribed legal procedure.

In view of these procedural lapses and statutory violations, the Court concluded that the detention of the petitioner was illegal. Consequently, the arrest, detention, and continued custody of the petitioner were declared unlawful, and the respondents were directed to release him forthwith.

However, the Court clarified that the order would not prevent the GST authorities from initiating fresh proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law and after complying with all legal requirements.

Case Name:  Ashish Tyagi vs. Director General of GST Intelligence dated 29.05.2026

To read the complete judgement 2026 Taxo.online 1491