Case Law Details
Ashish Tyagi Vs Director General of GST Intelligence And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition challenging the arrest, detention, and remand of the petitioner under Sections 132(1)(a), 132(1)(f), and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017.
The petitioner contended that the arrest was illegal because the arrest memo did not contain specific grounds of arrest, nor were the grounds supplied as an annexure, allegedly violating Circular No. 02/2022-2023 issued by the CGST Department. It was also argued that the arrest memo merely stated that the grounds of arrest had been explained to the petitioner without recording that they had been supplied. Further, certain columns of the jama talashi form were left blank despite the petitioner’s signatures being obtained. The petitioner also challenged the remand order on the ground that these deficiencies were ignored by the Remand Magistrate.
The respondents filed a counter affidavit but failed to rebut the petitioner’s submissions with supporting material or documents.
Upon examining the arrest memo, the High Court found that it did not disclose the place of arrest, which was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal. The Court further noted that the grounds of arrest dated 10.12.2025 did not bear a CBIC Document Identification Number (DIN). Although the petitioner had endorsed receipt of the arrest memo and grounds of arrest and had informed a friend about his arrest, the respondents did not dispute the petitioner’s contention that, under Circular No. 2/2022-2023 dated 11.03.2025, every document was required to bear a CBIC-DIN.
The Court held that the petitioner had been illegally detained in violation of the legal requirements. Consequently, the arrest and detention were declared illegal, and the petitioner was directed to be released forthwith.
However, the Court clarified that the respondents would be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. The writ petition was accordingly allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Sri Hamendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned A.G.A for the State-respondent.
2. The writ petition has been filed praying for following reliefs :-
“(i) To issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents herein to produce the corpus/petitioner while declaring the detention, arrest, and subsequent remand and custody of the petitioner as unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary and consequently directing that the petitioner be released forthwith;
(ii) To issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order dated 18.02.2026 passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Case No. 2122 / 2025, Union of India vs. Ashish Tyagi, under Section 132(1)(a), 132(1)(/), 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017, Department DGGI, Ghaziabad and all consequential proceedings thereof
(iii) To issue any other and further writ, order, or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) To allow the instant petition with costs.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, neither the grounds of arrest have been mentioned in the arrest memo nor have the grounds of arrest been supplied as an annexure thereto, which is in clear violation of Circular No. 02/2022-2023 issued by the C.G.S.T. Department.
4. Secondly, no specific grounds of arrest have been mentioned in the arrest memo. The arrest memo merely records that the grounds of arrest were explained to the arrestee. However, there is no recital therein to indicate that the grounds of arrest were supplied to the petitioner as an annexure to the arrest memo. Further, the columns (i) to (iv) of the jama talashi were kept blank and the signatures of the petitioner were obtained thereon. It is further submitted that the learned Remand Magistrate failed to consider the aforesaid discrepancies and illegally granted remand of the petitioner. Hence, the arrest and detention of the petitioner are illegal and liable to be declared as such, and the petitioner is entitled to be released forthwith.
5. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit but have not been able to rebut the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner by placing any material or document on record.
6. We have perused the arrest memo, which does not disclose the place of arrest of the petitioner, in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal reported in 1997 SCC (Cri) 92.
7. We further find that the grounds of arrest dated 10.12.2025 do not bear any CBIC DIN. The petitioner has been made to endorse on the arrest memo that he had received the arrest memo along with the grounds of arrest and that he had informed Mr. Pawan Kumar, his friend, about his arrest through a mobile phone call.
8. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that, in terms of Circular No. 2/2022-2023 dated 11.03.2025 issued by the CGST Department, every document is required to bear a CBIC-DIN, has not been controverted by the respondents. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner has been illegally detained by respondent nos. 2 and 3 in violation of the mandate of law.
9. In view of the above consideration, the arrest and detention of petitioner is held to be illegal and is directed to be released forthwith.
10. However, it shall be open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner afresh, strictly in accordance with law.
11. The writ petition stands allowed.
Author Bio
