Aman Tayal vs. State

Held

The Court noted the submissions of the learned counsel for the CGST Department that Ankur Mittal was called by issuing a notice and thereafter permitted to go home. In light of these submissions, the Court disposed of the petition as having been rendered infructuous. The Court explicitly left the petitioner at liberty to avail other legal remedies concerning the submission about the alleged detention of Ankur Mittal. No specific finding was made on the legality of the detention itself, as the petition was disposed of on the ground of being infructuous based on the respondent's statement that the individual was allowed to go home.

Facts

The petitioner, Aman Tayal, filed a criminal writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court alleging illegal detention of Ankur Mittal by the CGST Department, Rohtak. The CGST Department stated that Ankur Mittal was summoned via written notice concerning a case of bogus billing and GST evasion amounting to ₹70 crores. He was called to the office on August 22, 2019, and August 23, 2019, after which he was permitted to go home. The petitioner's counsel contended that despite being allowed to go home, Ankur Mittal was detained for two days. The CGST Department confirmed that Ankur Mittal was issued a notice and subsequently allowed to leave.

Key Issues

1. Whether the detention of Ankur Mittal by the CGST Department, Rohtak, for two days, despite being issued a notice and subsequently permitted to go home, constituted illegal detention? The petitioner argued that Ankur Mittal was illegally detained for two days. The respondent CGST Department contended that Ankur Mittal was summoned by issuing a written notice in relation to a GST evasion case and was permitted to go home after his appearance on August 22 and 23, 2019. The Department did not explicitly address the allegation of detention for two days beyond stating he was allowed to go home.