Case Summary: Vishal Kumar Arya v. Union of India – Calcutta High Court – CRM (SB) 19 of 2025 – Bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 in connection with offence under Section 132(1)(b) & (c) of CGST Act, 2017 – Category: Arrest & Bail – Date: 18.02.2025 – Relevant Sections: Section 69, 132 of CGST Act, 2017; Section 483 BNSS 2023; D.K. Basu guidelines
Facts (Para 1–2)
The petitioner, Vishal Kumar Arya, was arrested on 1 February 2025 by the DGGI under Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act for alleged tax evasion, despite having appeared before the authority a day earlier and cooperating in investigation. It was alleged that the arrest violated Section 36 of the BNSS 2023 and CBIC’s Instruction dated 17 August 2022 (as amended 13 January 2025) concerning arrest procedures. The petitioner argued that the arrest memo lacked attestation by a family member or respectable local resident, contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997 1 SCC 416).
Questions for Determination (Para 2–3)
-
Whether non-attestation of the arrest memo by a family member or respectable local renders the arrest invalid.
-
Whether such procedural defect amounts to a mere irregularity or vitiates the entire arrest under the CGST Act.
Observations (Para 3–4)
Justice Suvra Ghosh examined the CBIC Instruction 4.2 of 17 August 2022 (amended 13 January 2025), which mandates strict compliance with D.K. Basu guidelines. The Court referred to Para 35 of D.K. Basu requiring an arrest memo to be attested by a family member or a respectable person of the locality and countersigned by the arrestee.
In this case, the arrest memo was attested only by a driver, neither a family member nor a local resident. The Court rejected the respondents’ reliance on Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana (2010 3 SCC 746) and Kashif Mahfuz Shaikh v. DRI (2023 SCC OnLine Cal 4188), observing these pertained to NDPS Act contexts and not applicable to CGST arrests. Hence, the procedural violation was substantive and not a mere irregularity.
Judgment (Para 4–5)
The Court held that the arrest, made in violation of statutory instructions and the D.K. Basu mandate, was illegal and void ab initio. Consequently, the arrest being bad in law, the petitioner was granted bail without examining the case merits.
He was directed to furnish a bond of ₹ 10,000 with two sureties (one local) to the satisfaction of the ACJM, Sealdah, and to report to the investigating officer twice a week till filing of the charge sheet. The order stressed that the petitioner must not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
Summary of Cases Referred
| Case | Citation | Principle / Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal | (1997) 1 SCC 416 | Mandates attested arrest memo by family/local; non-compliance vitiates arrest. |
| Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana | (2010) 3 SCC 746 | NDPS Act case; procedural lapse treated as irregularity – not applicable to CGST. |
| Kashif Mahfuz Shaikh v. DRI | 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 4188 | NDPS context; not relevant for GST arrests. |
Between Fine Lines
This judgment reinforces that procedural safeguards during GST arrests are non-negotiable. Any arrest memo lacking attestation by a family member or local resident—as required under D.K. Basu and CBIC Instruction 4.2—renders the arrest legally unsustainable. For trade and professionals, this ruling underlines the importance of demanding adherence to BNSS and CBIC guidelines during any GST-related enforcement action.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
