GST Arrest Held Illegal — Allahabad HC Orders Immediate Release via Habeas Corpus After Finding Grounds of Arrest Not Supplied and Remand Order Passed Mechanically

The Allahabad High Court has ordered the immediate release of a person arrested under Section 132(1)(b)(c) and (i) of the CGST Act, holding the arrest, detention and remand to be illegal. The Division Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant, in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 369 of 2026 (Hari Shankar Sharma vs. DGGI, decided 21.04.2026), found that the CGST department had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements laid down by the Supreme Court in multiple recent judgments on the furnishing of grounds of arrest.

The petitioner was arrested on 30.10.2025 in connection with an alleged theft of Rs. 15.48 crore of CGST. He was produced before the Special C.J.M. on 01.11.2025 and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner's case was that at the time of arrest, no "grounds of arrest", "arrest memo" or "Jama-Talashi" were supplied to him — his signatures were taken on these documents before the Magistrate, but the documents themselves were never furnished. The CGST department claimed that the arrest memo along with grounds of arrest were provided to the petitioner and his wife, as endorsed by the petitioner on the arrest memo.

The Court examined the documents closely and found critical deficiencies. The "grounds of arrest" bore no CBIC-DIN (Document Identification Number), which is mandatory under the department's own Circular No. 02 of 2022-2023 dated 11.03.2025. There was no place of arrest mentioned in the arrest memo, violating the principles laid down in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal. Column No. 3 of the arrest memo merely stated that the grounds were "explained" to the arrestee — it contained no recital that the grounds were actually "supplied" as an annexure. The Jama-Talashi was entirely blank in Columns I to IV — nothing recovered from the petitioner was described.

Turning to the remand order, the Court found it was passed in the most casual manner. The Remand Magistrate had not considered whether the grounds of arrest were actually served, had not examined the "reasons to believe" under Section 69 of the CGST Act, and had merely noted that the allegations appeared to be a "serious economic offence" before directing remand. The Court held that once the remand order is found to have been passed mechanically and without application of mind, a habeas corpus petition becomes maintainable — relying on paragraphs 61 and 63 of the Supreme Court's judgment in Gautam Navlakha vs. NIA.

The Court rejected the revenue's objection that since the bail application had been rejected and SLP was pending before the Supreme Court, habeas corpus would not lie. The distinction drawn was that the challenge here was to the very legality of the arrest and remand, not merely the denial of bail. The remand order was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be released forthwith without waiting for supply of the certified copy of the order.

•  2026-juristway.com-1062-HC(Allahabad)-GST  |  High Court of Allahabad  |  Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 369 of 2026  |  21.04.2026