Rupinder Singh Chhikara vs. The Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax And Others

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, Director of M/s. Rebuild Energy, was illegally arrested by the officers of Central Goods and Services Tax department on 29.07.2026. Prior to his arrest, petitioner had been fully co- operating with the investigating agency and appearing before the authorities, whenever summoned. On 29.07.2026, officers of Central Goods and Services Tax Department conducted search proceedings at his residence at 5.36 AM and ordered him to switch off CCTV cameras. Petitioner remained in custody and control of GST officers, throughout the day and was taken to G.S.T. Bhawan, Sector 25, Panchkula, at about 1.33 PM. He was not informed that he was placed under arrest. Grounds of arrest were neither furnished to him, nor communicated to any member of his family, thus, depriving the petitioner of his valuable constitutional right to seek immediate legal assistance. Learned counsel further submits that official records of the respondent regarding the time of arrest were contradictory. In one of the documents, time of arrest was recorded as 06.34 PM, whereas the arrest memo recorded the time of arrest as 7.45 PM, which created serious doubts regarding the actual time of arrest and legality of the arrest. All the documents AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.08.11 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

It was further submitted that authorization of arrest under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act was never supplied to the petitioner, nor to any member of his family. The subsequent intimation of grounds of arrest was also general in nature, failing to effectively communicate the material, which constituted the foundation of his arrest. The respondents sought judicial remand before learned Duty/Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Intelligence and 3 others 2026 AHC 32796-DB and Radhika 2026.08.11 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Undisputedly, petitioner was arrested on 29.07.2026. That petitioner was supplied the grounds of arrest is also not denied. The grounds of arrest dated 29.07.2026 are on record as Annexure P-1. They have been challenged on the ground that they merely reproduced the allegations in general manner and failed to effectively communicate the factual basis of arrest. The argument is against record. Annexure P-11, intimation of grounds of arrest, is a document in 05 pages informing the petitioner of his role as Proprietor and key person, responsible for the entire operation, financial decisions and manager of M/s. Rebuild Energy, the quantum of wrongful availment of ITC done by the firm. The grounds are accompanied by a table which gives the precise details of the tax payer, its registered address, nature of business, proprietor, role of the arrestee, total wrongful ITC availed and the period involved. It also gives the details of the GST evasion/inadmissible availment of fraudulent ITC by M/s. Rebuild Energy through 25 bogus/non-existent suppliers (dummy firms). Not only the names of the dummy firms have been recorded in Annexure P-11 but also the precise amount of fake ITC passed on AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.08.11 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Another pertinent argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that all the documents recorded different time of arrest and in fact, the petitioner was arrested on 5.36 AM, from his residence, kept in custody throughout the day and later on different time was mentioned in various documents. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies upon a CCTV footage in a pen drive, appended with the petition.

No findings of fact can be recorded by Writ Court on the basis of a CCTV footage in a pen drive which requires proof in accordance with law. Even though, the arrest memo records time of arrest as 7.45 PM, the grounds of arrest mentions the time of arrest as 6.34 PM and authorization for arrest bears the time as 5.56 PM, the contradiction in the time of arrest does not render the arrest illegal. Since, petitioner was produced before learned Duty/Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula on 29.07.2026 itself, the officers of the respondent department could have no reason or motive to manipulate the time of arrest. No prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner due to the contradiction in the time of arrest. AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.08.11 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

to submit that even the “reasons to believe” recorded by the Commissioner were not supplied to the petitioner at the time of arrest. The judgment in Radhika Agarwal’s case does not expressly lay down that the “reasons to believe” required to be 2025 AIR Supreme Court 5554. In Jai Kumar Aggarwal’s case relied upon by the petitioner, the remand order was set aside as it did not mention regarding supplying of grounds of arrest at the time of arrest and before producing him before the remand Magistrate. The remand order was also not found to be in accordance with law. Such is not the position in the case before us. AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.08.11 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

No arguments have been addressed with regard to the show cause notices impugned in the writ petition.

There is, thus, no merit in the criminal writ petition, which stands dismissed.

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an opinion on merits of the case.

Pending CRM(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) 07.08.2026 JUDGE Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned: