Rupender Singh Chhikara Vs Union of India And Others (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Summary: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the criminal writ petition filed by Rupender Singh Chhikara under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging his arrest on 29.07.2026, the consequential remand order, and certain show cause notices issued in connection with proceedings under Section 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner also sought release from custody.
The petitioner, stated to be a Director of M/s. Rebuild Energy, contended that his arrest by officers of the Central Goods and Services Tax Department was illegal. It was submitted that he had been cooperating with the investigation and appearing before the authorities whenever summoned. According to the petitioner, officers searched his residence at 5.36 AM on 29.07.2026, required the CCTV cameras to be switched off, and kept him in their custody before taking him to the GST Bhawan, Sector 25, Panchkula, at about 1.33 PM. He alleged that he was not informed that he had been arrested and that the grounds of arrest were neither furnished to him nor communicated to his family.
The petitioner also relied upon alleged inconsistencies in the official records concerning the time of arrest. The arrest memo recorded the time as 7.45 PM, while the grounds of arrest mentioned 6.34 PM and the authorization for arrest bore the time of 5.56 PM. The petitioner contended that these contradictions cast doubt on the legality of the arrest. It was further argued that the authorization of arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act had not been supplied to him or his family and that the grounds of arrest were general and insufficient. The petitioner challenged the subsequent remand as having been mechanically granted without independent satisfaction regarding compliance with the constitutional and statutory safeguards.
In support of the challenge, reliance was placed on Jai Kumar Aggarwal Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence And 3 Others, 2026 AHC 32796-DB and Radhika Agarwal Vs Union of India and Others, 2025 INSC 272.
The High Court observed that Article 22(1) of the Constitution requires an arrested person to be informed of the grounds of arrest in all offences, including offences under special enactments. The Court stated that the grounds are required to be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and, in any event, at least two hours before production of the arrested person for remand proceedings, and non-compliance would render the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.
On the facts of the present case, however, the Court found that the petitioner had in fact been supplied with written grounds of arrest. The grounds dated 29.07.2026 were contained in Annexure P-1/P-11 and extended to five pages. They identified the petitioner’s role as Proprietor and key person responsible for the operations, financial decisions and management of M/s. Rebuild Energy, specified the quantum of wrongful input tax credit allegedly availed, and set out the relevant period. The document also contained a table identifying the taxpayer, registered address, nature of business, proprietor, role attributed to the petitioner and the total wrongful ITC.
The grounds further contained details concerning alleged fraudulent ITC obtained through 25 bogus or non-existent suppliers, including the names of the dummy firms, the precise amounts of fake ITC allegedly passed on to M/s. Rebuild Energy, registration dates, status and reasons for cancellation. The document bore an endorsement by three officers stating that the arrestee had refused to receive and acknowledge the copy of the intimation of grounds of arrest in the presence of panchas. The High Court therefore rejected the petitioner’s characterization of the grounds as general, vague or ambiguous.
The Court also considered the discrepancy in the recorded times of arrest. It noted that the arrest memo recorded 7.45 PM, the grounds of arrest recorded 6.34 PM and the authorization for arrest recorded 5.56 PM. The petitioner sought reliance on CCTV footage contained in a pen drive to support his version that he had actually been arrested earlier. The Court declined to record findings of fact on the basis of that footage, observing that the material required proof in accordance with law. It further held that the discrepancy in the recorded time of arrest did not, by itself, render the arrest illegal. Since the petitioner had been produced before the Judicial Magistrate on the same day, the Court found no reason or motive for the departmental officers to manipulate the time and held that no prejudice could be said to have been caused by the contradiction.
With regard to Radhika Agarwal Vs Union of India and Others, 2025 INSC 272, the petitioner argued that even the “reasons to believe” recorded by the Commissioner had not been supplied at the time of arrest. The High Court held that the decision in Radhika Agarwal did not expressly lay down that the reasons to believe recorded by the Commissioner were themselves required to be supplied to the accused.
The Court then examined the remand proceedings. The record showed that the Judicial Magistrate had ensured representation of the petitioner by legal aid counsel or counsel of his choice. The petitioner was represented by Legal Aid Counsel, Panchkula, as well as another private counsel. After considering the submissions of the Investigating Agency and defence counsel, the Magistrate recorded satisfaction regarding the legality and justification of the arrest.
The remand order also recorded that the grounds of arrest had been communicated to the accused in writing within the stipulated time and that intimation of arrest had been given to his wife on her mobile number. The Magistrate further recorded that the arrest was legal and justified, considering that the alleged offences were serious and non-bailable and the investigation was continuing. Judicial remand for two days, until 01.08.2026, was accordingly granted.
In this context, the High Court distinguished the circumstances in Jai Kumar Aggarwal Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence And 3 Others, 2026 AHC 32796-DB, where the remand order had been set aside because it did not mention supply of the grounds of arrest and was not found to be in accordance with law. According to the High Court, that was not the position in the present case.
The Court also recorded that no arguments had been advanced concerning the show cause notices challenged in the writ petition. Finding no merit in the criminal writ petition, the Court dismissed it. The Court clarified that nothing stated in the order would be construed as an opinion on the merits of the underlying case. Pending miscellaneous criminal applications, if any, were also disposed of.
The decision therefore upheld the challenged arrest and remand in the circumstances placed before the Court, principally because the Court found that the written grounds of arrest were sufficiently detailed, the alleged timing discrepancy did not establish illegality or prejudice, and the remand proceedings reflected consideration of the applicable safeguards. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the underlying GST allegations.
Cases Discussed
- Jai Kumar Aggarwal Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence And 3 Others, 2026 AHC 32796-DB — relied upon by the petitioner concerning the legality of arrest and remand where the remand order did not record compliance regarding communication of the grounds of arrest; the High Court distinguished that decision on the facts of the present case.
- Radhika Agarwal Vs Union of India and Others, 2025 INSC 272 — relied upon by the petitioner concerning the requirement of communication of arrest-related safeguards; the High Court held that the judgment did not expressly require the Commissioner’s recorded “reasons to believe” themselves to be supplied to the accused.
- Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs State of Maharashtra and Another, 2025 AIR Supreme Court 5554 — referred to in the remand order for the requirement that grounds of arrest be communicated to the accused in writing, and considered by the High Court while assessing the legality of the remand proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
The petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India seeks following reliefs:
(i) To declare arrest of petitioner on 29.07.2026, remand order dated 29.07.2026 and all proceedings conducted by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class(Duty), Panchkula, in complaint F. No. GEXCOM/AE/INV/GST/13377/2025 under Sections 132(1)(c) punishable under sub-clause (i) of sub-Section (1) of Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, illegal;
(ii) Quashing/setting aside of order of arrest of the petitioner and subsequent remand order dated 29.07.2026 of learned Duty Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula,
(iii) Quashing/setting aside of show cause notices dated 19.02.2026, 19.06.2026, 22.07.2026, 13.05.2026, 29.07.2026 and 29.07.2026;
(iv) direction to release the petitioner from custody forthwith.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, Director of M/s. Rebuild Energy, was illegally arrested by the officers of Central Goods and Services Tax department on 29.07.2026. Prior to his arrest, petitioner had been fully co- operating with the investigating agency and appearing before the authorities, whenever summoned. On 29.07.2026, officers of Central Goods and Services Tax Department conducted search proceedings at his residence at 5.36 AM and ordered him to switch off CCTV cameras. Petitioner remained in custody and control of GST officers, throughout the day and was taken to G.S.T. Bhawan, Sector 25, Panchkula, at about 1.33 PM. He was not informed that he was placed under arrest. Grounds of arrest were neither furnished to him, nor communicated to any member of his family, thus, depriving the petitioner of his valuable constitutional right to seek immediate legal assistance. Learned counsel further submits that official records of the respondent regarding the time of arrest were contradictory. In one of the documents, time of arrest was recorded as 06.34 PM, whereas the arrest memo recorded the time of arrest as 7.45 PM, which created serious doubts regarding the actual time of arrest and legality of the arrest. All the documents were prepared only after petitioner had already been deprived of his liberty.
3. It was further submitted that authorization of arrest under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act was never supplied to the petitioner, nor to any member of his family. The subsequent intimation of grounds of arrest was also general in nature, failing to effectively communicate the material, which constituted the foundation of his arrest. The respondents sought judicial remand before learned Duty/Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula, who mechanically authorized judicial custody without examining the legality of arrest and contradictory arrest records. The remand order did not record any independent satisfaction regarding compliance of constitutional and statutory safeguards governing arrest. Thus, arrest of the petitioner and consequent remand orders were unconstitutional, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, Sections 6(2)(b), 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 187 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Jai Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence and 3 others 2026 AHC 32796-DB and Radhika Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and Others 2025 INSC 272.
4. There can be no denying that as per constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the arrested person is required to be informed of the grounds of arrest in all offences, including Special Acts. The grounds of arrest are required to be communicated in writing to the arrestee within reasonable time and in any case, at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings and any non- compliance would render the arrest and the subsequent remand illegal.
5. Undisputedly, petitioner was arrested on 29.07.2026. That petitioner was supplied the grounds of arrest is also not denied. The grounds of arrest dated 29.07.2026 are on record as Annexure P-1. They have been challenged on the ground that they merely reproduced the allegations in general manner and failed to effectively communicate the factual basis of arrest. The argument is against record. Annexure P-11, intimation of grounds of arrest, is a document in 05 pages informing the petitioner of his role as Proprietor and key person, responsible for the entire operation, financial decisions and manager of M/s. Rebuild Energy, the quantum of wrongful availment of ITC done by the firm. The grounds are accompanied by a table which gives the precise details of the tax payer, its registered address, nature of business, proprietor, role of the arrestee, total wrongful ITC availed and the period involved. It also gives the details of the GST evasion/inadmissible availment of fraudulent ITC by M/s. Rebuild Energy through 25 bogus/non-existent suppliers (dummy firms). Not only the names of the dummy firms have been recorded in Annexure P-11 but also the precise amount of fake ITC passed on to M/s. Rebuild Energy along with the date of registration, status and the reasons for cancellation. The document which bears an endorsement of 03 officers that “the arrestee refused to receive and acknowledge the copy of intimation of grounds of arrest in the presence of panchas” cannot be taken as general, vague or ambiguous document.
6. Another pertinent argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that all the documents recorded different time of arrest and in fact, the petitioner was arrested on 5.36 AM, from his residence, kept in custody throughout the day and later on different time was mentioned in various documents. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies upon a CCTV footage in a pen drive, appended with the petition.
7. No findings of fact can be recorded by Writ Court on the basis of a CCTV footage in a pen drive which requires proof in accordance with law. Even though, the arrest memo records time of arrest as 7.45 PM, the grounds of arrest mentions the time of arrest as 6.34 PM and authorization for arrest bears the time as 5.56 PM, the contradiction in the time of arrest does not render the arrest illegal. Since, petitioner was produced before learned Duty/Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula on 29.07.2026 itself, the officers of the respondent department could have no reason or motive to manipulate the time of arrest. No prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner due to the contradiction in the time of arrest.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India and Others 2025 INSC 272 to submit that even the “reasons to believe” recorded by the Commissioner were not supplied to the petitioner at the time of arrest. The judgment in Radhika Agarwal’s case does not expressly lay down that the “reasons to believe” required to be recorded by the Commissioner, are required to be supplied to the accused.
9. Record shows that upon production before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, it was ensured by the judicial officer that the petitioner is represented by legal aid counsel or defence counsel of his choice. The order of remand was passed only after petitioner was represented by Legal Aid Counsel, Panchkula and another private counsel. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula, after taking note of the submissions made by the Investigating Agency and the defence counsel, observed that grounds of arrest were duly communicated to learned counsels for the accused in writing as mandated by the Apex Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2025 AIR Supreme Court 5554. In Jai Kumar Aggarwal’s case relied upon by the petitioner, the remand order was set aside as it did not mention regarding supplying of grounds of arrest at the time of arrest and before producing him before the remand Magistrate. The remand order was also not found to be in accordance with law. Such is not the position in the case before us.
Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class recorded her satisfaction that arrest of the accused was justified in the given circumstances and the requirement of Section 35 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was duly complied with. The order records that grounds of arrest were communicated to the accused in writing within the stipulated time and intimation of arrest was given to his wife on her mobile number. Learned Magistrate has also observed that arrest of the accused in the case was legal and justified as the offences alleged were serious, non-bailable and investigation was ongoing. Judicial remand of the accused/petitioner for a period of 02 days till 01.08.2026 was allowed. The argument that learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula mechanically authorized custody of petitioner without examining the legality of arrest, has no factual basis.
10. No arguments have been addressed with regard to the show cause notices impugned in the writ petition.
11. There is, thus, no merit in the criminal writ petition, which stands dismissed.
12. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an opinion on merits of the case.
13. Pending CRM(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
