Law of Arrest and Mandatory Compliance by Authorities Under GST

Recently, allegations and accusation of violation of provisions of GST by GST authorities are not uncommon, prompting the authorities to threaten to enforce the law in manner provided in law, including exercise of powers of arrest of persons involved in violation of GST provisions.

As per law and as per judicial precedents governing practice of arrest under GST law, is not unrestricted and it is not possible and permissible for the authorities to enforce GST law, by resorting to arrest of the person who has violated GST law in all violations and offences.

The powers of arrest of a person who has allegedly violated law is not to be resorted as a matter of course, but is restricted and governed by legal principles, provisions, judicial precedents, departmental instructions , which have become a code by themselves and the practitioners and people are required to know them thoroughly.

This article is an attempt to show, for the benefit of all that is enforcing authorities, consultants, lawyers and public a large, an overview of law of arrest under GST.

The law is now governed by provisions of arrest under the Bhartiya Nagrik Samhita 2023 and GST enactments pertaining to arrest and by judicial precedents.

Powers to arrest are not absolute, but are governed by provisions of Constitution of India, GST Act and Rules, Criminal Procedure Code, departments’ instructions and judicial precedents.

The general law of arrest in India is governed primarily by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CR P C) (Now for short BNSS). The Cr P C (Now BNSS) outlines the powers of different authorities to make an arrest, the procedures that must be followed, and the rights of the person being arrested. The law of arrest under the CR P C (Now BNSS) is a complex and crucial part of the Indian criminal justice system, designed to balance the state’s power to investigate and prosecute crime with the fundamental rights of individuals.

The new criminal procedure code in India is the BNSS, which replaced the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CR P C) (Now BNSS). The BNSS largely retains the core principles of the law of arrest from the Cr PC, but introduces several significant changes and clarifications aimed at making the process more transparent, technology-driven, and citizen-centric.

APPLICABILITY OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE.(Now BNSS):

Following provisions in Cr P C (Now BNSS) are relevant:

“4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws.—(1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code(45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained.

(2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.

5. Saving.—Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being inforce, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force.

Thus, the provisions of the Code would be applicable to the extent that there is no contrary provision in the special act or any special provision excluding the jurisdiction and applicability of the Code. Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, (1994) 3 SCC 440.

In A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and Another, (1984) 2 SCC 500 it is held that the absence of a specific provision made in the statute indicating that offences will have to be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to that statute, the same will have to be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the Code of Criminal Procedure (Now BNSS). In other words, Code of Criminal Procedure (Now BNSS) is the parent statute which provides for investigation, inquiring into and trial of cases by criminal courts of various designations. Hence, unless it is shown that GST law provided otherwise then the CR P C (Now BNSS), the law provided in CR P C (Now BNSS) will prevail.

PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS OF THE CR P C(NOW BNSS) APPLY:

The Supreme Court has clarified that the procedural safeguards and provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr P C), 1973, (Now BNSS) shall apply to arrests made under indirect tax laws. [Radhika Agarwal vs Union of India and Others [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1331]

The BNSS provisions of arrest of a person as is provided in Chapter V from clauses 35 to 62, which are required to be followed by officers who effect arrest of a person under provisions of GST.

WHEN A PERSON CAN BE ARRESTED UNDER GST.

Under section 69 of CGST Act provides that if the Commissioner has reasons to believe that a person has committed any offence specified in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 132 which is punishable under clause (i) or (ii) of sub-section (1), or sub-section (2) of the said section, he may, by order, authorise any officer of central tax to arrest such person who is suspected to be involved in committing such offence.

Provisions of clause (a), (b), (c), (d) of sub-section (1) of section 132 are extracted herein below:

^*Section 132. Punishment for certain offences.-

(1)Whoever commits, or causes to commit and retain the benefits arising out of, any of the following offences], namely:-

(a) supplies any goods or services or both without issue of any invoice, in violation of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, with the intention to evade tax;

(b) issues any invoice or bill without supply of goods or services or both in violation of the provisions of this Act, or the rules made thereunder leading to wrongful availment or utilisation of input tax credit or refund of tax;

(c) ²[avails input tax credit using the invoice or bill referred to in clause (b) or fraudulently avails input tax credit without any invoice or bill;]

(d) collects any amount as tax but fails to pay the same to the Government beyond a period of three months from the date on which such payment becomes due;

(e)…………….”

It is not enough that the person has committed above stated offences but it should also be punishable under clause (i) or (ii) of sub-section (1), or sub-section (2) of the said section 132.In other words, if an offence is not punishable under section 132(2)(i) or (ii), no arrest is permissible.

The section 132(2) (i) or (ii), are reproduced herein below:

“132 (1)(i) in cases where the amount of tax evaded or the amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds five hundred lakh rupees, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine;

(ii) in cases where the amount of tax evaded or the amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds two hundred lakh rupees but does not exceed five hundred lakh rupees, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine;

(iii)……”

The offences specified in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) and punishable under clause (i) of that sub-section shall be cognizable and non-bailable.Sub section (5).

NATURE OF THE OFFENCE:

> ‘Cognizable offence’

Section 2(c) What is ‘Cognizable offence’, is defined in of the Code, means an offence for which the police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule of the Code or any other law for the time being inforce, arrest without a warrant.

Section 2(1)(d) (d) of BNSS defines “cognizable offence” means an offence for which, and “cognizable case” means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant;

> ‘Non-cognizable offence’

 Section 2(l) Non-cognizable offence is defined in of the Code, means an offence for which a police officer has no authority to arrest without a warrant.

Section 2(1) (m) of BNSS defines “non-cognizable offence” means an offence for which, and “non-cognizable case” means a case in which, a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant;

All offences under CGST Act, except the offences referred to in section 132, sub-section (5) shall be non- cognizable and bailable. This means that no arrest can be made and the same cannot be investigated without an order of Magistrate and arrest cannot be made without order of warrant by Magistrate.

PREREQUISITE FOR ARREST:

The first and foremost mandate is that , the Commissioner must have authentic material which indicates and gives reason to believe, commission of offence u/s 132(1) (a) to (d) have been committed punishable under. The Commissioner must have authentic material which indicates and gives reason to believe which punishable under section 132(2)(i) or (ii). It is clear from the aforesaid provisions that, to pass an order of arrest in case of cognizable and non-cognizable offences, the Commissioner must satisfactorily show, vide the reasons to believe recorded by him, that the person to be arrested has committed a cognizable and non-bailable offence and that the pre-conditions of sub-section (5) to Section 132 of the Act are satisfied. Failure to do so would result in an illegal arrest. A person is said to have a “reason to believe” a thing, if they have sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise. This represents a more stringent standard than the “mere suspicion” .At threshold it is provided that the Commissioner, while recording the reasons to believe should state his satisfaction and refer to the ‘material’ forming the basis of his finding regarding the commission of a cognizable and non-bailable offence, as specified in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) to Section 132punishable under section 132(2)(i) or (ii). The computation of the tax involved in terms of the monetary limits under clause (i) of sub-section (1), which make the offence cognizable and non-bailable, should be supported by referring to relevant and sufficient materials. [Radhika Agarwal vs UOI [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1331].The aforesaid exercise should be undertaken in right earnest and objectively, and not on mere ipse dixit without foundational reasoning and material. The arrest must proceed on the belief supported by reasons relying on materials that the conditions specified in subsection (5) of Section 132 are satisfied, and not on suspicion alone. An arrest cannot be made to merely to investigate whether the conditions are being met. The arrest is to be made on the formulation of the opinion by the Commissioner, which is to be duly recorded in the reasons to believe. The reasons to believe must be based on the evidence establishing , to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, that the requirements of sub-section (5) to Section 132 of the GST Act are met. The power of arrest should be used with great circumspection and not casually. Further, as in the case of service tax, the power of arrest is not to be used on mere suspicion or doubt, or for even for investigation, when the conditions of sub-section (5) to Section 132 of the GST Acts are not satisfied. But there could be cases where even without a formal order of assessment, the department/Revenue is certain that it is a case of offence under clauses (a) to (d) to subsection (1) of Section 132 and punishable under section 132(2)(i) or (ii), and the amount of tax evaded, etc. falls within clause (i) of sub-section (1) to Section 132 of the GST Acts, with sufficient degree of certainty. In such cases, the Commissioner may authorise arrest, when he is able to ascertain and record reasons to believe. There has to be a degree of certainty about probable dues to establish that the offence.

PROCEDURE AND PROVISIONS OF ARREST:

1. The officer authorised to arrest the person shall inform such person who has been arrested on the grounds of arrest in writing and shall take acknowledgment on memo of arrest. [The instructions by circular 17.08.2022 of Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (GST-Investigation Wing); Instruction No. 01/2025-GST dated 13.01.2025 (GST/INV/Instructions/21-22) by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (GST Investigation Wing) as amended vide Instruction No. 01/2025-GST dated 13.01.2025 (GST/INV/Instructions/21-22) ]

2. The person arrested shall be produced before a Magistrate within twenty four hours of arrest.[Article 22 and S 57 if CR P C and Section 57 of BNSS, 2023]

3. The CR P C (Now BNSS) , provisions of GST law , departmental instructions and judicial pronouncements (like the Supreme Court’s guidelines in the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal(1997) 1 SCC 416 ) have established a detailed procedure for making an arrest to ensure transparency and prevent misuse of power.

Summary of Guidelines issued in D K Basu (supra) by the Supreme Court to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention as preventive measures :

Identification and Documentation

• Police personnel must wear clear identification and maintain a register of those involved in the interrogation. The police officer must bear an accurate and visible identification of their name [S. 36 BNS].
• A memo of arrest must be prepared at the time of arrest, attested by a witness and signed by the arrestee, including the time and date.
• The arrested individual has the right to have a friend or relative informed of their arrest, unless the witness is such a person. ​
• Police must notify the next friend or relative of the arrestee’s location within 8 to 12 hours if they reside outside the district. ​
• An entry regarding the arrest must be made in the detention diary, including the name of the informed friend and details of the police officials involved

Notification and Record Keeping

• Police must notify the next friend or relative of the arrestee’s location within 8 to 12 hours if they reside outside the district. ​
• An entry regarding the arrest must be made in the detention diary, including the name of the informed friend and details of the police officials involved. ​

Medical Examination and Legal Rights

• The arrestee should be examined for injuries at the time of arrest, with documentation signed by both parties. ​
• Medical examinations by approved doctors are required every 48 hours during detention. ​
• Copies of all relevant documents must be sent to the Magistrate for record-keeping. ​

Legal Representation and Communication

• The arrestee may meet with their lawyer during interrogation, though not continuously. ​
• A police control room must be established to communicate arrest information within 12 hours, displayed prominently for public access. ​

Medical Examination and Legal Rights

• The arrestee should be examined for injuries at the time of arrest, with documentation signed by both parties. ​
• Medical examinations by approved doctors are required every 48 hours during detention. ​
• Copies of all relevant documents must be sent to the Magistrate for record-keeping. ​

These guidelines are codified by making provisions in Cr P C as follows:

The Central Board of Excise and Customs, in a Circular dated 20.02.1998 (File No.591/01/98-CUS (AS)), referenced the decision in D.K. Basu (supra).They have reproduced the relevant portions of the judgment with the intent that these would be complied with by the customs officers. The circular makes other directions concerning medical examination, the duty to take reasonable care of the health and safety of the arrested person, and the procedure of arresting a woman, etc. It also lays down the post-arrest formalities which have to be complied with. It further states that efforts should be made to file a prosecution complaint undersection 132 of the GST Acts at the earliest and preferably within 60days of arrest, where no bail is granted. Even otherwise, the complaint should be filed within a definite time frame. A report of arrests made must be maintained and submitted as provided in paragraph.

4. A woman can only be arrested by a female police officer and, unless the circumstances require otherwise, not after sunset or before sunrise, an arrest after sunset or before sunrise requires a written report and prior permission from a Judicial Magistrate of the first class within whose local jurisdiction the offence is committed or the arrest is to be made.[ Section 43(1) – BNSS]. Where a woman is to be arrested, unless the circumstances indicate to the contrary, her submission to custody on an oral intimation of arrest shall be presumed and, unless the circumstances otherwise require or unless the police officer is a female, the police officer shall not touch the person of the woman for making her arrest.

5. An arrested person has the right to consult a lawyer of their choice from the moment of arrest and throughout the interrogation (Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 41D Cr PC(Now in S 48 in BNSS).

6. Interrogation is permissible in presence of lawyer to be at distance which is not audible. This principle aligns with the Supreme Court’s stance in cases like Senior Intelligence Officer v. Jugal Kishore Samra, [AIR ONLINE 2011 SC 388] which permitted the presence of a lawyer within sight but out of hearing range, balancing constitutional rights with investigative efficacy.[Section 38 of BNSS.]

7. A memorandum of arrest must be prepared. This memo must be:

i. Attested by at least one witness (a family member of the arrested person or a respectable person from the locality).

ii. Countersigned by the arrested person.

iii. This document must also be countersigned by the person arrested.

iv. The date and time of the arrest should also be mentioned in the arrest memo. Lastly, a copy of the arrest memo should be given to the person arrested under proper acknowledgement.[Section 36 of BNSS]

8. The arresting officer must inform the arrested person of their right to have a friend or relative informed of their arrest[S 48 BNSS].

9. An arrested person can request a medical examination by a registered medical practitioner (Section 54 CR P C)(Now S 53 in BNSS). The police can also get an arrested person medically examined (Section 53 CR P C) (Now S 53 in BNSS). This is a crucial right to ensure the arrested person’s health and to prevent torture in custody.

INSTRUCTIONS AND CIRCULARS BY CBIC:

The instructions by circular dt. 17.08.2022 of Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (GST-Investigation Wing); Instruction No. 01/2025-GST dated 13.01.2025 (GST/INV/Instructions/21-22) by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (GST Investigation Wing), has provided Guidelines in respect of arrest for arrest and bail in relation to offence punishable under the CGST Act, 2017.

These instructions regarding the grounds of arrest came to be amended by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (GST-Investigation Wing) vide Instruction No. 01/2025-GST dated 13.01.2025(GST/INV/Instructions/21-22). The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (‘CBIC’) has, in pursuance of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Kshitij Ghildiyal v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Delhi[i], inter alia, specific other precedents, amended instruction no. 2/2022-23, vide the present instruction (‘Instruction’), to detail the procedure that has to be followed while making an arrest under s. 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’). Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of Kshitij Ghildiyal versus Director General of GST Intelligence, Delhi [W.P. (crl) No. 3770/2024], vide judgement dated 16.12.2024, has held that the grounds of arrest have to be communicated in writing to the arrested person. The grounds of arrest must be explained to the arrested person and also furnished to him in writing as an Annexure to the Arrest Memo. Acknowledgement of the same should be taken from the arrested person at the time of service of the Arrest Memo.

Gist of Circulars can be summarised as follows which provide for guidelines apart from those contained specifically in CR P C and BNSS:

• The reasons to believe to arrive at a decision to place an alleged offender under arrest must be unambiguous and amply clear.
• The arrest should not be made in routine and mechanical manner.
• The reasons to believe must be based on credible materials.
• Whether accused is likely to tamper the course of further investigation or is likely to tamper with evidence or intimidate or influence witnesses?
• Whether person is mastermind or key operator effecting proxy/ benami transaction in the name of dummy GSTIN or non-existent persons, etc. for passing fraudulent input tax credit etc.?
• As unless such person is arrested, his presence before investigating officer cannot be ensured.
• Approval to arrest should be granted only where the intent to evade tax or commit acts leading to availment or utilization of wrongful Input Tax Credit or fraudulent refund of tax or failure to pay amount collected as tax as specified in sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the CGST Act 2017, is evident and element of mens rea / guilty mind is palpable.
• 4 Thus, the relevant factors before deciding to arrest a person, apart from fulfilment of the legal requirements, must be that the need to ensure proper investigation and prevent the possibility of tampering with evidence or intimidating or influencing witnesses exists.
• Arrest should, however, not be resorted to in cases of technical nature i.e. where the demand of tax is based on a difference of opinion regarding interpretation of Law
• The generation and quoting of Document Identification Number (DIN) mandatory on communication issued by officers of CBIC to tax payers.
• Medical examination of an arrested person should be conducted by a medical officer in the service of Central or State Government and in case the medical officer is not available, by a registered medical practitioner, soon after the arrest is made.
• Arrest should be made with minimal use of force and publicity, and without violence. The person arrested should be subjected to reasonable restraint to prevent escape.

ANTICIPATORY BAIL:

The Supreme Court has clarified that an individual who has a reasonable apprehension of arrest under indirect tax laws can apply for anticipatory bail from a court even before an FIR is registered or an arrest is made. This provides an important safeguard for taxpayers against potential arbitrary actions by tax authorities. We also wish to clarify that the power to grant anticipatory bail arises when there is apprehension of arrest. This power, vested in the courts under the Code and BNSS, affirms the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution to protect persons from being arrested.

In Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab [1980] 3 SCR 383 Supreme Court had held that when a person complains of apprehension of arrest and approaches for an order of protection, such application when based upon facts which are not vague or general allegations, should be considered by the Court to evaluate the threat of apprehension and its gravity or seriousness. In appropriate cases, application for anticipatory bail can be allowed, which may also be conditional. It is not essential that the application for anticipatory bail should be moved only after a FIR is filed, as long as facts are clear and there is a reasonable basis for apprehending arrest. This principle was confirmed by a Constitution Bench of Five Judges of this Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [2020] 2 SCR 1:.

The petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail is maintainable for the offences committed under the CGST Act and there is no statutory bar for invoking or exercising power under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for the offence committed under the provisions of the CGST Act. Once it is found that the limited protection against arrest available under Sections 41 and 41A Cr.P.C. may be available even to a person sought to be arrested under Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 (though the necessity to record reasons in the authorization for arrest may not be there), it should follow as a coronary that the writ petitions cannot be said to be not maintainable [Hanumanthappa Pathrera Lakshmana Versus State by Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods & Service Tax Intelligence, Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No. 2419 of 2020 dt11-06-2020 before High Court of Karnataka]

However , contrary view is taken by Apex Courts namely in State of Gujarat v. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer and Another, 2023 SCC On Line SC 1043; and Bharat Bhushan v. Director General of GST Intelligence, Nagpur Zonal Unit Through Its Investigating officer, SLP (Crl.) No. 8525/2024 are held are contrary to the ratio in Radhika Agarwal vs UOI [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1331 should not be treated as binding . [Radhika Agarwal vs UOI [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1331].

JUDICIAL REVIEW:

Courts should not go into the correctness of the opinion formed or sufficiency of the material on which it is based , albeit if a vital ground or fact is not considered or the ground or reason is found to be non-existent, the order of detention may fail. Yet, at the same time, the courts should not go into the correctness of the opinion formed or sufficiency of the material on which it is based. However, the ground or reason is found to be non-existent, the order of detention may fail. [Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024] 6 SCR 346.]

The investigating officer is also required to look at the whole material and cannot ignore material that exonerates the arrestee. A wrong application of law or arbitrary exercise of duty by the designated officer can lead to illegality in the process. Turning to the scope and ambit of judicial review to be exercised by the court it can be said that judicial review does not amount to a mini-trial or a merit review. The exercise is confined to ascertain whether the “reasons to believe” are based upon material which ‘establish’ that the arrestee is guilty of an offence under the Act. The exercise is to ensure that the authorised person has acted in accordance with the law. The courts scrutinize the validity of the arrest in exercise of power of judicial review whether adequate and due care is taken by the Commissioner to ensure that the “reasons to believe” justify the arrest in terms of section 132 of the CGST Act. Doubts will only arise when the reasons recorded by the authority are not clear and lucid, and therefore a deeper and in-depth scrutiny is required. Arrest, after all, cannot be made arbitrarily and on the whims and fancies of the authorities. It is to be made on the basis of the valid “reasons to believe”, meeting the parameters prescribed by the law. In fact, not to undertake judicial scrutiny when justified and necessary, would be an abdication and failure of constitutional and statutory duty placed on the court to ensure that the fundamental right to life and liberty are not violated.

The courts should not inquire into correctness or otherwise of the facts found except where the facts found existing are not supported by any evidence at all or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable man would say that the facts and circumstances exist. Secondly, it is permissible to inquire whether the facts and circumstances so found to exist and have a reasonable nexus with the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. In simple words, the conclusion has to logically flow from the facts. If it does not, then the courts can interfere, treating the lack of reasonable nexus as an error of law. Thirdly, jurisdictional review permits review of errors of law when constitutional or statutory terms, essential for the exercise of power, are misapplied or misconstrued. The judicial review is permissible to check improper exercise of power. For instance, it is an improper exercise of power when the power is not exercised genuinely, but rather to create embarrassment or for wreaking personal vengeance. Lastly, judicial review can be exercised when the authorities have not considered grounds which are relevant or have accounted for grounds which are not relevant.

The court can exercise judicial review to strike down such a decision. On the extent of judicial review available with the court viz. “reasons to believe”, it was held that judicial review cannot amount to a merits review. The exercise is confined to ascertain if, based upon “material” in possession of the Commissioner and had “reasons to believe” that the arrestee is guilty of an offence under the CGST Act. [Radhika Agarwal vs UOI [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1331].

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY:

A challenge to the vires of ss.69 and 70 of the GST Act was rejected by Apex Court. It was held that under Article 246-Avof the Constitution, the Parliament has the power to make laws regarding GST and, as a necessary corollary, and enact provisions against tax evasion The impugned provisions lay down the power to summon and arrest, powers necessary for the effective levy and collection of GST. A penalty or prosecution mechanism for the levy and collection of GST, and for checking its evasion, it is a permissible exercise of legislative power. The GST Acts, in pith and substance, pertain to Article 246-A of the Constitution and the powers to summon, arrest and prosecute are ancillary and incidental to the power to levy and collect goods and services tax . Therefore, challenge to the constitutional validity as also the right of the authorised officers under the the GST Acts to arrest were dismissed. [Radhika Agarwal vs UOI [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1331].

The pith and substance of the CGST Act is on a topic, upon which the Parliament has power to legislate as the power to arrest and prosecute are ancillary and/or incidental to the power to levy and collect Goods and Services Tax. [Dhruv Krishan Maggu & Others Versus Union of India & Others2021 (277) DLT 604, 2021 (87) GSTR 410]

In P.V. Ramana Reddy v. Union of India issue was whether arrest under Section 69 can be made before adjudication was considered. It was held that arrest is permissible even before completion of assessment. The provision is not ultra vires.[Telengana High Court in WP 4764 of 2019 dt. 18.04.2019].