Rajesh Goyal S/O Jai Pakash vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's claim of illegal detention from May 31, 2024, to June 3, 2024, was not substantiated. The Court found that the arrest on June 3, 2024, and the subsequent remand order were not in violation of any law. The Court noted that the petitioner's friend was informed about the arrest and the production before the court 'in due course'. The Court also observed that the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate within a reasonable time after arrest, and the Magistrate had applied his mind before passing the remand order, as evidenced by the order itself. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of W.B., which held that a Magistrate is not required to pass a detailed order or give a reasoned conclusion while passing a remand order at the initial stage. Therefore, the Court concluded that the petitioner's arguments regarding illegal detention, violation of due process, and a non-est remand order were not tenable. Consequently, the writ petition seeking compensation and action against DGGI officials was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajesh Goyal, filed a writ petition challenging his alleged illegal detention and arrest by officers of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Jaipur Zonal Unit. The petitioner claims he was arrested on May 31, 2024, and illegally detained until June 3, 2024, without being informed of the grounds for his arrest. He further alleges that his arrest and subsequent production before the Magistrate were in violation of the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner also sought action against the DGGI officials for their alleged misconduct. The DGGI, represented by the revenue, contended that the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate within the prescribed time and that the remand order was passed after due application of mind.

Key Issues

1. Whether the detention of the petitioner from May 31, 2024, to June 3, 2024, was illegal and in violation of Section 69 read with Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that his detention was illegal as he was not informed of the grounds for arrest and was not produced before the Magistrate within the stipulated time. He contended that the entire process violated the due process of law and that the remand order passed by the Magistrate was non-est. The petitioner relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Anita Thakur vs. State of J&K, Rini Johar and Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., M C Mehta and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., Peoples Union for Democratic Rights vs. Police Commissioner, Delhi and Anr., Bhim Singh, MLA vs. State of J&K and Ors., and Inder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ors., to support his claim of illegal detention and sought compensation and action against the officials. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that the petitioner was arrested on June 3, 2024, at 01:10 PM and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate (Economic Offence Court, Jaipur) at 02:25 PM on the same day. They argued that the petitioner was informed about his production before the court, and the remand order was passed after due application of mind by the Magistrate, citing Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of W.B. The revenue also argued that any action taken by the DGGI officials was in good faith and protected under Section 157 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, thus absolving them from personal liability.