Delhi High Court seeks Centre's response in challenge to power to arrest under CGST Act

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Central government in a petition challenging the power of arrest given to Central Goods and Service Tax officers under section 69 of the Central Goods Service Tax Act, 2017. (Arun Gupta vs UOI).While challenging Section 132 CGST Act on punishment for certain offences, the petition also seeks a direction that the mandatory procedure under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be followed for a valid commencement of an investigation. .The matter was heard by a Division Bench of Justices Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula. .The petitioner, one Arun Gupta, is the Director of a company under investigation by Directorate General of GST Intelligence, New Delhi. .The petitioner has alleged that earlier this month, the CGST officials conducted a search at the company and "brutally slapped and manhandled" one of the employees. .Subsequently, summons were issued to the petitioner and an accountant of the company under section 70 CGST Act, 2017. .In view of the initiation of an investigation against him and his house being sealed, the petitioner approached the High Court to "safeguard his fundamental rights" and seek "adjudication of important and substantial questions of law of great public importance". .As per the petitioner, Section 69 is unconstitutional as an arrest under it has "no constitutional backing" under Article 246-A. ."..making an offence amounts to enacting of criminal law and Section 69 & 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 could not have been enacted to the general power to levy tax under Article 246A of the Constitution and thus enacting such provision is beyond the legislative competence.", the petition reads. .Any arrest under the section thus violates Part III of the Constitution of India, particularly Article 21, the petitioner has asserted. .It is further contended that any investigation by the CGST officers, which does not follow Sections 154 (Information in cognizable cases), 157 (Procedure for investigation preliminary inquiry) and 172 (Diary of proceedings in investigation) read with Section 4(2) [Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws] CrPC is non-est, illegal, unconstitutional, void ab initio and completely vitiated in law. .The petitioner states that since the offences alleged or suspected under the CGST Act are noncognizable, a citizen can neither be arrested without warrant issued by any Court nor can the officers commence investigation without the order of a Magistrate..The draconian provisions in CGST Act give a lot of discretion to the officers, which is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, the petitioner asserts.. .Before the court, the petitioner assured that he would cooperate in the investigation..It was also agreed by the officials that after preparation of panchnama, the residential premises and godown shall be de-sealed and the possession of the same shall be handed back to the petitioner..While listing the matter for further hearing on December 22, the court directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested till then..The petitioner was represented by Advocate Vijay Aggarwal with Advocates Naman Joshi, Nagesh Behl, Shailesh Pandey, Barkha Rastogi, Deepanshu Choithani, Yugant Sharma, Hardik Sharma. .Centre was represented by Standing counsel Asheesh Jain with Advocates Amrit Singh, Syed Husain Adil Taqvi..Read the order: