Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Revenue Secretary

Held

The Court held that the arrest memo dated August 18, 2022, was not invalid as it specifically recorded that the petitioner had committed offences under clauses (b), (c), (f), and (l) of sub-section (1) of section 132 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Regarding the alleged non-compliance with Instruction No. 02/2022-23, the Court found that these guidelines do not possess statutory force, and therefore, their violation would not render the arrest illegal. The Court also noted that the petitioner was released on the same day of arrest upon furnishing surety and that the writ petition was filed approximately three years later, suggesting the petitioner's primary aim was to recover the surety amount. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the matter. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma, proprietor of M/s. Vishwakarma Enterprises, engaged in trading non-ferrous metal scrap, filed a writ petition challenging his arrest memo dated August 18, 2022, and the subsequent order releasing him on furnishing surety of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The petitioner had received multiple summons for an inquiry related to M/s. CJ Enterprise. His GST registration was cancelled, which was later quashed by this Court with liberty to the Department to issue a fresh show cause notice. The petitioner appeared before the Inspector, Anti-Evasion, CGST & Central Excise, Bhiwandi, on August 18, 2022, leading to his arrest. The petitioner was released the same day on furnishing surety. The writ petition was filed approximately three years after the arrest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the arrest memo dated August 18, 2022, is invalid due to unspecified provisions of law under which the petitioner was arrested, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the arrest made on August 18, 2022, is illegal for non-compliance with GST – Investigation Wing Instruction No. 02/2022-23 dated August 17, 2022, as argued by the petitioner? Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the arrest memo lacked clarity regarding the specific legal provisions under which he was arrested. Furthermore, he contended that the arresting authority failed to adhere to the guidelines issued by the GST – Investigation Wing through Instruction No. 02/2022-23, rendering the arrest mechanical and illegal. Contentions of the Revenue: The respondents did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Court noted that the arrest memo did specify the offences under clauses (b), (c), (f), and (l) of sub-section (1) of section 132 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The Court also observed that the guidelines in Instruction No. 02/2022-23 do not have statutory force, and their violation does not render an arrest illegal.