2019 (3) TMI 1072 - HC - GST

Detention (custody) of persons - procedure to followed - satisfaction of commissioner u/s 69 of CGST Act - case of petitioner is for issuance of writ especially in the nature of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondents to produce the detenue as he is in the illegal detention of the respondents and has been detailed illegally without following the mandatory provisions of law - Held that - This Court is of the considered view that as per view taken by Larger Bench of Hon ble Apex Court in Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee's case 2018 (9) TMI 1782 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not be maintainable when a person is in custody on the basis of orders passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction. As regard to passing of reasoned order under Section 69 of the CGST Act, copy of the order has been placed on the file and the said order was passed by the competent authority in this case and on that ground, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Petition dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ petition under Articles 226/227 for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondents to produce detenue.
2. Detenue arrested without following mandatory provisions of CGST Act and IGST Act.
3. Detenue produced for judicial remand without proper procedure.
4. Bail application dismissed overlooking provisions of law.
5. Alleged confidential report not produced.
6. Revision petition dismissed without placing required orders on record.
7. Alleged noting/orders not signed by Commissioner.
8. Maintainability of writ petition due to detention legality.
9. Requirement of reasoned order under Section 69 of CGST Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the production of the detenue under Habeas Corpus, alleging illegal detention by the respondents. The detenue had responded to notices under the CGST Act previously and was subsequently arrested without following proper procedures.
2. The detenue's arrest lacked adherence to mandatory provisions of the CGST Act and IGST Act, with signatures obtained on blank papers. The judicial remand process was also flawed, as formal orders were not attached, leading to concerns about the legality of the detention.
3. Despite the detenue's bail application raising issues of procedural irregularities, it was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who overlooked legal provisions. The detenue's application for bail before the Sessions Judge was complicated by the absence of necessary orders on record.
4. The failure to produce the alleged confidential report during the proceedings raised doubts about the legality of the detention. The subsequent supply of noting/orders, not signed by the Commissioner, further added to the procedural irregularities.
5. The respondents argued against the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the detenue's custody based on judicial orders from a competent court. They contended that a writ of Habeas Corpus is not applicable in such cases, relying on legal precedents.
6. The court, after considering the arguments, held that a writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable when a person is in custody based on orders from a competent court. The presence of a reasoned order under Section 69 of the CGST Act was deemed sufficient, rendering the writ petition not maintainable.