2019 (12) TMI 1500 - HC - GST

Delegation of powers to Commissioner for authorizing the arrest - section 69 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 and Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - Let there be a notice returnable on 9.12.2019 as though ostensibly there appears to be an arrest in accordance with law but the counsel for the petitioner is not wholly incorrect in contending that the arrest memo and ground of arrest does not disclose any contemplation or mulling over and coming to a decision for arrest the father of petitioner on account of statutory designated authority and therefore the factum of arrest becomes absolutely illegal and thus this Court will have jurisdiction to make appropriate order and even issue writ of habeas corpus. The order of authorization which has been referred to by the arresting officer in the arrest memo whereunder he has been authorized to arrest the father of petitioner - Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 69 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 regarding the authority to arrest.
2. Legality of the arrest made by the State Tax Officer-3 without consultation with the designated statutory authority.
3. Jurisdiction of the Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus based on the legality of the arrest.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by Honourable Mr. Justice S.R. Brahmbhatt addressed the issue raised by the petitioner's counsel regarding the interpretation of Section 69 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The counsel argued that while the Commissioner can delegate powers for authorization of arrest, the decision to arrest must be made by the Designated Statutory Authority and cannot be delegated contrary to the Act. The Court acknowledged this argument and noted that the arrest memo and ground of arrest indicated that the arrest was made by the State Tax Officer-3 without consultation with the designated statutory authority.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the arrest memo did not demonstrate any contemplation or decision-making process by the designated statutory authority before the arrest was carried out. The Court, therefore, found the arrest to be illegal based on the lack of involvement of the designated statutory authority in the decision-making process. Consequently, the Court asserted its jurisdiction to make appropriate orders and potentially issue a writ of habeas corpus in this matter.

In light of the above findings, the Court directed the respondents to provide certain documents and information on the next date of hearing. These included the order of authorization for the arrest, evidence of deliberation by the designated statutory authority, material considered for the arrest decision, and any other supporting material justifying the arrest. The Court emphasized the need for the respondents to address the lack of consideration by the designated statutory authority, which cast doubt on the legality of the arrest.

Overall, the judgment focused on the procedural irregularities in the arrest process, particularly the failure to involve the designated statutory authority as required by the relevant provisions of the Acts. The Court's scrutiny of the arrest memo and the decision-making process highlighted the necessity for proper adherence to legal procedures in such matters to ensure the protection of individuals' rights and uphold the rule of law.