The Allahabad High Court has held that when proceedings and prosecution are already underway under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, authorities cannot initiate a separate criminal case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) on the same set of allegations.
The bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vivek Saran has declared the arrest by the Gujarat Police to be illegal and ordered his immediate release. The decision came while hearing a habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of his detention.
BUY NOW: GST Inspection, Search, Seizure and Arrest With Judgements: How To Defend?
According to the case records, the accused was initially arrested in connection with proceedings under the Central GST Act. The Gujarat Police arrested him on 20 April 2026 alleging GST-related irregularities. Subsequently, on 8 May 2026, he was brought from Ahmedabad to Uttar Pradesh on a B-Warrant and produced before a local court, which remanded him to judicial custody for fourteen days.
The matter reached the Allahabad High Court through a habeas corpus petition alleging violations of statutory safeguards and constitutional rights during the arrest process.
During the hearing, the High Court noted several glaring procedural lapses in the manner in which the arrest was carried out.
The Bench observed that the arrest memo was not supplied to the detainee, his son, or his advocate. The authorities also failed to communicate the grounds of arrest and did not inform family members about the detention.
The Court held that these omissions amounted to a clear violation of the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in Vihan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), which mandates strict compliance with arrest procedures and protection of the rights of arrested persons.
The Court further noted that when the accused was transported from Gujarat to Uttar Pradesh, the police did not obtain a transit remand from a competent magistrate, a mandatory legal requirement. The Bench remarked that such conduct was contrary to established criminal procedure.
The most important legal finding of the judgment relates to the issue of parallel proceedings.
The State argued that the accused had allegedly operated companies using fake addresses and therefore criminal action under the BNS was justified.
However, the High Court rejected this contention. The Bench held that the CGST Act is a self-contained and comprehensive legislation containing its own investigative and prosecutorial mechanisms.
According to the Court, once proceedings and prosecution under the CGST Act are already pending, launching another criminal case under the BNS based on the same factual allegations would be legally impermissible.
The Court emphasized that permitting such parallel action would result in duplication of proceedings and expose an individual to multiple prosecutions arising from the same transaction.
After examining the facts and the procedural irregularities, the High Court concluded that the arrest and continued detention of the petitioner could not be sustained in law.
The Court therefore declared the arrest illegal and directed the authorities to release the petitioner forthwith.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
