Punjab & Haryana High Court affirms validity of GST arrest backed by written grounds and proper remand

1. Background of the writ petition

The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rupender Singh Chhikara Vs Union of India And Others, CRWP-9512-2026 (O&M), decided on 07/08/2026, examined a challenge to an arrest and remand in connection with alleged offences under Section 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The petitioner, Rupender Singh Chhikara, stated to be Director of M/s. Rebuild Energy, invoked Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution seeking the following primary reliefs:

  • A declaration that:

    • His arrest on 29.07.2026,
    • The remand order dated 29.07.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Duty), Panchkula, and
    • All proceedings in complaint F. No. GEXCOM/AE/INV/GST/13377/2025
      under Sections 132(1)(c) (punishable under sub-clause (i) of sub-Section (1) of Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017) read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017,
      were illegal and void.

  • Quashing of:

    • The order of arrest dated 29.07.2026;
    • The consequential remand order dated 29.07.2026 by the Duty Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula;
    • Various show cause notices dated 19.02.2026, 19.06.2026, 22.07.2026, 13.05.2026, 29.07.2026 and 29.07.2026.

  • A direction for his immediate release from custody.

The petitioner asserted that he had been fully cooperating with the authorities and had appeared whenever summoned prior to his arrest. He also claimed that the actions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Department on the date of search and arrest violated his constitutional and statutory protections.

2. Factual assertions by the petitioner

2.1 Search and alleged custody on 29.07.2026

According to the petitioner’s version placed before the Court:

  • Officers of the Central Goods and Services Tax Department conducted a search at his residence at 5.36 AM on 29.07.2026.
  • During the search, he was allegedly instructed to switch off the CCTV cameras.
  • He claimed that from that point onward, he remained under the “custody and control” of the GST officers throughout the day.
  • He was then taken to GST Bhawan, Sector 25, Panchkula at about 1.33 PM.

The petitioner alleged that despite being in the effective custody of officers for the entire day, he was never informed that he had been formally arrested.

2.2 Complaint regarding non-communication of grounds of arrest

The petitioner further contended that:

  • The grounds of arrest were neither handed over to him nor conveyed to any of his family members.
  • This omission, according to him, deprived him of the opportunity to immediately consult a legal practitioner and seek appropriate legal remedies.
  • He alleged that he was thus denied the protection guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

2.3 Alleged contradictions in official records on time of arrest

The petitioner highlighted what he described as inconsistencies in the official record concerning the timing of arrest:

  • One document, described as intimation of grounds of arrest, indicated the time as 6.34 PM;
  • The arrest memo mentioned the arrest time as 7.45 PM;
  • The authorization for arrest bore the time 5.56 PM.

On this basis, he argued that:

  • The conflicting times raised doubt about when he was actually arrested;
  • The documents were allegedly prepared only after he had already been deprived of personal liberty; and
  • This discrepancy, according to him, cast serious suspicion on the legality and bona fides of the arrest itself.

2.4 Challenge to arrest authorization and grounds of arrest

The petitioner additionally claimed that:

  • The authorization of arrest under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was never supplied to him or to any member of his family.
  • The later “intimation of grounds of arrest” was, according to him, couched in general terms and did not effectively convey the factual or evidentiary foundation for his arrest.

2.5 Allegation of mechanical remand

With respect to the judicial remand order, the petitioner submitted that:

  • The officers moved for his judicial custody before the learned Duty/Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula.
  • The Magistrate, he alleged, mechanically authorized judicial custody without independently examining:
    • The legality of his arrest, or
    • The contradictions in the arrest records.
  • He claimed that the remand order did not demonstrate any independent satisfaction regarding observance of constitutional and statutory safeguards, including those relating to communication of grounds of arrest and intimation to family.

On these premises, the petitioner argued that:

  • His arrest and the subsequent remand orders were unconstitutional and arbitrary;
  • They were contrary to Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India;
  • They were in violation of Sections 6(2)(b) and 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 187 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2.6 Case law relied upon by the petitioner

To reinforce his challenge, the petitioner cited:

  • Jai Kumar Aggarwal Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence And 3 Others, 2026 AHC 32796-DB – on the consequences of non-compliance with arrest and remand safeguards when the remand order does not reflect supply of grounds of arrest; and
  • **Radhika Agarwal ...