The Punjab and Haryana High Court has questioned the arrest of a GST-registered trader who appeared before tax authorities pursuant to its direction, finding a prima facie violation of his right to personal liberty under Article 21, the Court ordered his immediate release and called upon two CGST officers to explain their conduct.
The Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor characterised the haste surrounding the summons and arrest as prima facie violative of Article 21 and said the authorities’ conduct appeared to overreach the pending judicial proceedings. It added that the officers’ conduct warranted examination, but that they should be heard before any recommendation for disciplinary action was made.
Buy Now: 500+ CGST Notifications (2017–2025) | Clickable Index E-Magazine | Hyperlinked Original PDFs
The petitioner/assessee is the karta of an HUF carrying on business had been directed in an earlier proceeding to appear before the GST authorities at 11 am on September 23, 2026. The direction followed a dispute over whether he was cooperating with an investigation. His firm had also challenged the attachment of its bank account, raising objections concerning the absence of a show cause notice and a personal hearing.
The assessee appeared before the department as directed. According to his petition, he brought the documents sought by the department but was kept at its office through the day and night. Although he alleged that he had effectively been detained from 11 am on September 23, the arrest memo recorded his arrest at 4:45 am on September 24. He then challenged both the arrest authorisation and the arrest memo.
The department argued that there was no order staying Goyal’s arrest and that his anticipatory bail had already been rejected. When the officers appeared before the Court, they further said that his statement had been recorded during the September 23 appearance and that his replies were evasive, prompting the decision to arrest him.
The Bench was not persuaded at this stage. It noted that the September 23 appearance had been directed by the Court to address the department’s allegation of non-cooperation. The earlier matter was listed for September 29, when the authorities were expected to report what had happened. In the Bench’s view, the authorities should have brought any subsequent concern to the Court’s attention.
The Court also observed that the arrest authorisation did not mention its earlier order or record that Goyal had appeared with documents pursuant to that order. It described the stated reasons for arrest—including preventing further offences, ensuring an unhindered investigation and preventing interference with evidence or witnesses—as prima facie misplaced in the circumstances before it.
The Court separately examined a summons issued on September 23 under Section 70 of the CGST Act. It noted that the summons required Goyal to appear at 12:05 pm that day, even though he had already appeared at 11 am under the Court’s direction. The document identification number (DIN) was generated at 12:07 pm, after the appearance time stated in the summons.
Calling this a prima facie indication of manipulation in the summons, the Bench questioned how a summons bearing that DIN could specify an earlier time for appearance. These observations remain preliminary; the officers have been given an opportunity to respond.
The High Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, to release Goyal forthwith. He must surrender his passport, obtain the Court’s permission before leaving India, and inform the concerned Commissioner of Police of his whereabouts and mobile number before leaving the district.
The Court directed that Principal Commissioner Sugrive Meena and CGST officer Mohmad Saleem be added as respondents in their personal capacities and issued them notices to explain why observations recommending disciplinary action should not be made against them.
The release is an interim measure. The Bench expressly stated that it had not decided the merits of the proceedings against Goyal. The matter was listed for September 29, 2026.
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.
Read More: CESTAT Quashes Rs. 23.17 Crore Customs Duty Demand on Toyota
