Introduction
In CGST v. Yogesh Gupta[i], the Court of the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram (‘Ld. Court’) examined the judicial interpretation of procedural safeguards in arrests made under taxation statutes, particularly the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (‘Act’) and adjudicates upon a scenario wherein the remand sought by Complainant/ Enforcement department (GST Department in the present case) is rejected due to non-compliance with the procedure established under the Criminal Procedure Code Act, 1973 (‘CrPC’) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 (‘BNSS’).
Brief Facts
Yogesh Gupta (‘Accused’) was arrested by the GST Department (‘Complainant’) under s. 69 of the Act on allegations of committing an offence punishable under s. 132(1) of the Act, which carries a maximum imprisonment of five years.
Following the arrest, the Complainant filed an application under s. 167 of the CrPC read with s. 187 of the BNSS, seeking 14 days of judicial remand.
The Accused, in response, filed an application seeking rejection of the Complainant’s remand plea due to non-compliance with statutory procedural requirements, specifically:
1. Failure to properly communicate the grounds of arrest – The Accused contended that the grounds of arrest were either not provided or were insufficient to understand the nature of the case and allegations against him.
2. Non-compliance with s. 41A of CrPC /s. 35 of the BNSS – No prior notice was issued before arresting the Accused, despite the alleged offence being punishable by imprisonment not exceeding seven years.
The Complainant argued that s. 69 of the Act, being a special statute, overrides the general provisions of the CrPC and BNSS. Additionally, they contended that the Accused was duly informed of the grounds of arrest in writing, rendering the arrest lawful.
Held
The Ld. Court, while relying upon the precedence laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar[ii], Akil Krishan Maggu v. Deputy Director[iii], and State of Gujarat v. Choodamani Parameshwaran Iyer[iv], allowed the application filed by the Accused and proceeded to release him from the custody of the Complainant.
The Ld. Court allowed the accused’s application, holding that the Complainant was legally bound to comply with ss. 41 and 41A of the CrPC / s. 35 of the BNSS before effecting the arrest. Non-compliance with these statutory safeguards rendered the arrest illegal and unlawful.
The remand application was rejected, and the Ld. Court ordered the immediate release of the accused while granting the Complainant the liberty to re-arrest him after fulfilling the procedural requirements.
Our Analysis
This ruling holds significant legal and procedural value, particularly because it originates from the subordinate judiciary rather than constitutional courts. It reinforces the principle that statutory and procedural safeguards extend beyond higher judicial forums, ensuring protection against arbitrary arrests and procedural violations even at the grassroots level of the justice system.
The decision underscores the necessity of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in taxation-related arrests, aligning with constitutional protections against arbitrary detention and coercive action by government agencies.
Furthermore, the ruling achieves a balanced approach; while curbing the overreach of enforcement authorities, it does not allow an accused to escape prosecution on mere technical grounds. By permitting the Complainant to re-initiate arrest proceedings after due compliance, the Ld. Court upholds both individual rights and the interest of the exchequer.
This case serves as a reminder to enforcement agencies that adherence to procedural mandates is not a mere formality but a fundamental legal obligation, ensuring that investigative actions remain legally sound, just, and constitutionally valid.
End Notes
[i] CNR No: HRGR03-005388-2025; CIS No: REMP/132/2025.
[ii] 2014 SCC OnLine SC 532.
[iii] 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 5416.
[iv] 2023 Livelaw (SC) S52.
Authored by the Editorial Team at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion.