Harinder Singh Rawat vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.
Held
The Court observed that with respect to the prayer for an inquiry against the arresting officers, the petitioner's remedy lies in filing an appropriate claim before a competent court of law that can record findings upon appreciation of evidence, as the legality of the arrest can only be decided after parties have had an opportunity to lead evidence. Regarding the prayer for laying down guidelines for inter-state arrest under Section 69 of the GST Act, 2017, the Court noted that a Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India & Ors. has already dealt with this issue elaborately and laid down the law. The respondents submitted that the judgment in Radhika Agarwal would be followed. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with these observations.
Facts
The petitioner, Harinder Singh Rawat, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging his arrest from his residence in Noida. He also complained about the manner in which the arrest was carried out and made a representation to the authorities regarding the actions of the arresting officers. The petitioner confined his prayers to seeking an inquiry against the arresting officers and directions for laying down guidelines for inter-state arrests under Section 69 of the GST Act, 2017. The respondents contended that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the arrest occurred in Noida. The petitioner had been released on bail.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, considering the arrest was effected in Noida, when the petitioner seeks directions against authorities located in Delhi regarding an inquiry and guidelines for inter-state arrests under Section 69 of the GST Act, 2017? 2. Whether an inquiry should be set up against the arresting officers for their alleged illegal actions against the petitioner, including proceedings under the GST Act, 2017? 3. Whether guidelines for inter-state arrest under Section 69 of the GST Act, 2017, need to be laid down by the relevant authorities? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction as he is seeking directions against respondent authorities whose offices are located in Delhi, and the reliefs sought pertain to inquiries and guidelines. He also sought an inquiry into the alleged illegal actions of the arresting officers. Revenue's arguments: The respondents contended that the Delhi High Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter as the arrest was effected in Noida.
Sections Cited
Section 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026
On 26.05.2023, following order was passed:- “1. Mr Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has confined the relief in the present petition to prayers (a) and (b), which read as under:
“(a) Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate Writ directing the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for setting up an enquiry against Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 for their illegal actions against the Petitioner (including proceedings under Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017); and/or (b) Issue an appropriate Writ, order(s) or direction(s) directing Respondent No. 1 to 3 lay down
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.