GST Update

Desk of CA. Praveen Sharma – 1106 Series (CAPS) 

Punjab & Haryana High Court IN THE CASE OF Mohit Bansal v. Union of India

GST Arrest Quashed: Commissioner’s Arrest Order Must Be Communicated Before Arrest

Outcome: In favour of petitioner.

The named petitioner is an individual; a company name could not be verified.

Challenge: Mohit Bansal questioned the legality of his arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act.

Commissioner’s satisfaction: Arrest requires the Commissioner’s statutory authorisation based on recorded reasons to believe.

Prior communication: The Court required communication of the Section 69(1) order before arrest.

Compliance unproved: The actual authorisation, recorded reasons and supporting material were not placed on record.

Arrest memo insufficient: Merely stating that the Commissioner had reasons to believe did not establish compliance. 

Binding undertaking: Authorities had specifically promised seven working days’ prior notice before arrest; this undertaking was breached.

Summons distinguishable: Section 70 summons for inquiry cannot substitute for notice of an intended arrest.

Custody argument rejected: Presence during a search did not, by itself, prove arrest; the alleged 24-hour production violation was rejected.

Remand no cure: Subsequent remand orders could not cure the defects rendering the arrest invalid from inception.

Relief: The Court allowed the petition and directed release, subject to any other lawful basis for custody.

LINK:CA. Praveen Sharma on Linkedin

Best Regards,

CA Praveen Sharma

Mob. No. +91-98715 30610