S. 69 CGST Act | 'Reasons To Believe' Need Not Be Furnished But 'Grounds' Must Be Supplied As Annexure To Arrest Memo: Allahabad HC

A Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay thus allowed the habeas corpus writ petition filed by one Jai Kumar Aggarwal while setting aside the remand order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.

The Court ordered the petitioner's immediate release after finding that the Department (Directorate General of GST Intelligence) had failed to comply with its own circular requiring the grounds of arrest to be physically attached to the memo.

In this case, the Court also held that the ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment in Satendra Kumar Antil vs. CBI that “arrest in an exception” for offences punishable up to 7 Years is applicable to the arrests made under the CGST Act, 2017.

BRIEFLY PUT, the officers of the DGGI detained the petitioner on December 29, 2025, and initiated search proceedings at his residential premises pursuant to Section 67 of the CGST Act. He was arrested on January 16, 2026, as per Section 69 of the Act.

The petitioner moved the HC with a habeas plea contending that at the time of arrest, the officers handed him over an arrest memo which had no annexures.

It was further argued that neither the "grounds of arrest" nor the "reasons to believe", as per Section 69 CGST Act, were furnished to him as has been made mandatory by the Supreme Court in Radhika Agrawal vs Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 255.

The petitioner also argued that the arrest in this case was unwarranted as the alleged offence was punishable for only up to five years of imprisonment and thus, it fell within the protective ambit of the guidelines issued in Satendra Kumar Antil.

On the other hand, the Revenue department argued that “reasons to believe” are internal documents meant for the perusal of the Department and the Court only. It was asserted that Section 69(1) of the CGST Act only requires the Commissioner to have reasons to believe, not to disclose them to the arrestee.

High Court's observations

At the outset, the Court perused the Supreme Court's Radhika Agrawal judgment to note that while the Supreme Court mandated that “grounds of arrest” and “reasons to believe” are required to be recorded, the obligation to supply them differs.

The Court held:

"It is amply clear from the above paragraphs of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Radhika Agrawal (supra) that it is for the Commissioner to ascertain and record the "reasons to believe" explicitly and with reference to the material and evidence underlying his opinion. It is not provided anywhere that the "reasons to believe" should be supplied to the accused".

Consequently, the Court rejected the petitioner's argument that non-supply of "reasons to believe" vitiated the arrest.

Regarding the argument over non-supply of arrest ground, the Court noted that in Radhika Agrawal Judgment, Instruction No. 01/2025-GST dated January 13, 2025 was referred to, which mandates that grounds of arrest must be explained to the arrested person and also be furnished to him in writing as an Annexure to the arrest memo.

Upon perusing the arrest memo in the present case, the division Bench found a critical lapse:

"In this case we find that in the arrest memo, there is no mention of any annexure. Therefore it appears that opposite party nos. 1 & 2 have not...complied their own circular dated 13.1.2025 by furnishing to the petitioner the 'grounds of arrest' alongwith the arrest memo as its annexure."

The Court noted that the remand order recorded that grounds were communicated orally and signatures were taken, but it failed to verify if the grounds were supplied as an annexure before production.

This failure to adhere to the prescribed safeguard rendered the remand order illegal, the Court concluded

The bench also found force in the argument of the petitioner that he ought not to have been arrested since he had been implicated for committing an offence, which is punishable with less than 7 years.

"…since Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra) has not excluded the application of ratio of the judgment to the offences covered under the Special Act (CGST Act). Therefore we agree that the ratio of the judgment in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra) will apply to this case also", the Court ruled.

Thus, holding that the remand order suffered from legal infirmity due to the non-compliance with the Antil guidelines and the failure to furnish grounds of arrest as an annexure, the Court set aside the Magistrate's order.

The Court, however, said that it shall be open for the respondent to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so warranted.

Senior Counsel Imran Ullah, assisted by Advocates Sri Mohit Singh, Nadeem Murtaza, Vedant Gupta, Snigdha Singh and Harsh Vardhan Kediya and Vineet Vikram, appeared for the petitioner;

Dhnanjay Awasthi, Gopi Krishan Soodh and Harmanpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel DGGI, Delhi (online), counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2

AGA-I Manju Thakur, for State-respondent nos. 3 & 4