HC Upholds GST Arrest as Statutory Safeguards Were Followed

Case Details: Abdul Karim vs. Union of India - [2026] 186 taxmann.com 430 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Nitin B. Suryawanshi & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ.
Santosh Punalkar, Adv. for the Petitioner.
Vijay Killedar, Jitendra B. Mishra & D.B. Deshmukh, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged his arrest by the DGGI, Kolhapur for offences under the CGST Act and also assailed the remand order passed by the Magistrate. It was contended that the arrest was illegal due to non-compliance with statutory safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), including absence of proper authorisation, non-service of valid grounds of arrest, failure to inform family members, denial of opportunity to consult a lawyer, and violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The petitioner further argued that the remand order was non-speaking and passed in breach of principles of natural justice. The respondents submitted that statements of the petitioner had been recorded prior to arrest disclosing involvement in tax evasion, reasons to believe were duly recorded and digitally signed, grounds of arrest were served in Hindi, and intimation of arrest was given to the petitioner’s wife. The matter was carried before the High Court

High Court Held

The High Court held that statutory requirements governing arrest under the CGST Act and BNSS had been duly complied with. It observed that the “reasons to believe” for arrest were properly recorded, digitally signed by the competent authority, and served upon the petitioner along with translated grounds of arrest. The Court further held that since the arrest memo was signed in the presence of the petitioner’s friend and intimation had been given to the wife, no violation of Articles 21 and 22 was established. With respect to the remand order, the High Court observed that the Magistrate had recorded satisfaction regarding compliance with Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS and justification for arrest; therefore, the order could not be termed non-speaking. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that judicial review in matters of arrest under special statutes is confined to examining compliance with statutory and constitutional safeguards. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.