The High Court of Punjab and Haryana issued an order on 02/07/2025 in the case of Barkha Bansal vs. Chandigarh and Others. The Court interpreted the arrest of the accused on 04/06/2025 at 12:05 PM as illegal custody exceeding 24 hours and issued a notice to the concerned department, scheduling a date for further proceedings.
In the case, the concerned department summoned the accused on 04/06/2025 at 12:05 PM for the purpose of recording statements. Subsequently, on 05/06/2025 at 9:25 PM, the accused was produced before the duty magistrate for judicial custody. The High Court noted that the warrant officer had arrived at the concerned department with the Court’s order prior to 9:25 PM and had informed the department accordingly. Nevertheless, the accused was arrested and kept in custody for more than 24 hours, which the Court deemed illegal.
The High Court has treated this action as contempt of court and scheduled a preliminary hearing for 18/07/2025.
In my opinion, when the accused was summoned to the concerned department on 04/06/2025 at approximately 12:02 PM and their entry was recorded in the department’s register, the officials should have made an exit entry on the same day and released them. This becomes even more critical considering that the Hon’ble High Court had already issued an order before the arrest memo was served by the warrant officer. The arrest and subsequent production of the accused before the judicial magistrate—despite the High Court’s communication—could be considered a violation of the Court’s directive.
Various judgments of the Hon’ble High Court and the Supreme Court establish that when a GST taxpayer is summoned, their arrival must be recorded, and CCTV footage of the relevant room must be preserved. This underscores that departmental officers should not proceed hastily with arrests and should consider releasing the individual after recording their statement as an accused.
According to the provisions of the GST Act, particularly under Section 132, when an arrest is made, the arrest memo must clearly indicate the time of arrest, and the accused must be produced before a competent court within 24 hours, as mandated by law.
In the present case, when the High Court appointed a warrant officer and the officer communicated the Court’s directions to the concerned authorities before the arrest, the officials should have exercised caution and refrained from arresting the accused. This is especially relevant since the High Court possesses the authority to pass any order in revision under Sections 528 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In my opinion, the High Court should require the concerned officials to demonstrate during the hearing that they did not violate the Court’s directions and that the arrest was carried out lawfully.
- Does Summoning By GST Dept. Amounts to Constructive Arrest? - July 11, 2025
