A Special Court in Meerut has remanded accused Yogendra Kumar Srivastava to 14 days of judicial custody in connection with an alleged Rs. 727 crore tax evasion racket involving illegal trade of areca nuts.

According to the prosecution, the accused was arrested on April 2, 2026, for his alleged involvement in a large-scale network engaged in the illegal procurement and supply of areca nuts. Investigations revealed that the accused facilitated the movement of goods from Assam and Karnataka without proper invoices and supplied them to pan masala manufacturers under the guise of fake retail sales.

The DGGI informed the court that the accused operated through firms such as M/s Ambey Flavours and M/s Mahalaxmidevi Flavours. These firms were involved in manufacturing popular pan masala brands like “Ashiqi” and “Cash Gold”. Approximately 1.43 crore kilograms of  areca nuts were allegedly traded illegally. The total GST evasion is estimated at ₹727 crore, causing substantial loss to the government

During searches conducted at the premises of the accused, officials reportedly recovered digital devices and handwritten records, which allegedly corroborate the illegal transactions. The accused is also said to have admitted to involvement in such activities during questioning.

The defence strongly opposed the remand and raised several legal objections: The arrest was allegedly made in violation of provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The accused claimed he was picked up on April 1, 2026, but officially shown arrested only on April 2, suggesting illegal detention beyond 24 hours

It was argued that the arrest memo was incomplete, containing only 4 columns instead of the mandated 16 The accused claimed that grounds of arrest were not communicated, violating constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22 The defence also argued that the offence under certain clauses of Section 132 is bailable, and that proper notice under Section 35(3) BNSS was not issued

Further, reliance was placed on judicial precedents emphasizing procedural safeguards in arrest, including compliance with Supreme Court guidelines.

Lakshay Kumar Singh, SPP on behalf of the department countered these claims by presenting visitor register entries showing the accused visited the DGGI office on April 1, 2026, at 1:30 PM and left at 12:15 AM (April 2). Evidence indicating that the accused was formally arrested on April 2, 2026, at 6:55 PM. A detailed arrest memo and records of communication of grounds of arrest. Digital evidence retrieved from the accused’s mobile phone, including call records and WhatsApp chats

The prosecution maintained that all legal procedures were followed and that the accused was involved in a serious economic offence with nationwide ramifications.

The court observed that the allegations involve grave economic offences causing significant loss to the public exchequer. Evidence on record prima facie supports the prosecution’s case. The arrest procedure appears to have been conducted in compliance with legal requirements. Given the scale and nature of the offence, custodial interrogation and further investigation are necessary

The court allowed the remand application and ordered 14 days of judicial custody for the accused and the accused to be produced before the court again on April 15, 2026.

Read More: GSTN Suggests Rectification Route to Enable Appeals in ‘NIL Demand’ Cases on GST Portal