Mandeep Dhiman vs. Deputy Director Genral Of GST Intelligence & Ors

Held

The Court held that a writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable when a person is in custody on the basis of orders passed by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Court relied on the Larger Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee's case, which observed that if a person is in police custody pursuant to a remand order passed by a jurisdictional Magistrate, and this order is not challenged, a writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued. The Court further noted that the High Court should be loath to enter upon the merits of the arrest in the absence of any challenge to the judicial order passed by the Magistrate. Regarding the issue of a reasoned order under Section 69 of the CGST Act, the Court found that a copy of the order had been placed on record and was passed by the competent authority, thus not rendering the petition maintainable on that ground. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the CrPC seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for the illegal detention of Sammy Dhiman. The petitioner alleged that Sammy Dhiman was issued notices under the CGST Act, responded to them, and then was illegally arrested on July 3, 2018, without following mandatory provisions. Signatures were obtained on blank papers, and proper arrest procedures were overlooked. He was produced for judicial remand on July 4, 2018, and his bail application was dismissed on July 17, 2018. The court noted that orders from the Additional Director General were not produced initially. A revision petition by the revenue against a CJM order was dismissed. The petitioner argued the detention was illegal due to non-compliance with Section 69 of the CGST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable when the detenue is in custody pursuant to orders passed by a court of competent jurisdiction, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the CrPC? 2. Whether the detention of Sammy Dhiman is illegal due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically the requirement of a reasoned order by the Commissioner authorizing arrest? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the detention was illegal as the respondents failed to follow the mandatory provisions of the CGST Act and IGST Act, 2017. They argued that a writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable if the detention is illegal, citing Madhu Limaye and others Vs. State of Bihar and another judgment. They also argued that Section 69 of the CGST Act mandates a reasoned order by the Commissioner for arrest, which was not initially produced or properly signed. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner is in custody as per judicial orders passed by a competent court, citing State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee and Kanu Sanyal Vs. District Magistrate. They also contended that a reasoned order had been passed by the Commissioner and there was no illegality in the proceedings.