Nitin Aggarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 58; GST statutory provision - Section 69; GST statutory provision - Section 70

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The above noted writ petition has been filed praying for following reliefs:- I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents herein to produce and release the corpus/petitioner from their illegal custody while declaring the arrest, detention and subsequent remand of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary null and void. IA. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and to quash and set aside the impugned remand order dated 31.1.2026 (Annexure-16 to the amended writ petition) as well as any subsequent remand order/s as being illegal. II. Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case. III. Award the cost of the petition. Operative disposition: In view of the above we hold that the…
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 273 of 2026 Nitin Aggarwal …..Petitioner(s) Versus State of UP and 3 others …..Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhishek Ghosh, Ram M. Kaushik Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Dhananjay Awasthi, Lakshay Kumar Court No. - 44 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. HON'BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Order on Criminal Misc. Amendment Application No. 04 of 2026 Amendment application is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to carry out necessary amendment within the course of day. Order on Habeas Corpus Writ Petition 1. Heard Sri Ram M. Kaushik and Sri Abhishek Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned AGA for respondent no.1; Sri Dhananjay

HABC No. - 273 of 2026 Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4 and perused the material on record. None appears on behalf of respondent no.2. 2. The above noted writ petition has been filed praying for following reliefs:- I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents herein to produce and release the corpus/petitioner from their illegal custody while declaring the arrest, detention and subsequent remand of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary null and void. IA. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and to quash and set aside the impugned remand order dated 31.1.2026 (Annexure-16 to the amended writ petition) as well as any subsequent remand order/s as being illegal. II. Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case. III. Award the cost of the petition. 3. The brief facts of the petition are that the entire controversy emanates out of an investigation/ inquiry initiated by DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit in relation to alleged availment of fraudulent I.T.C as well as fake invoices being generated without supply of goods by M/s. NTEXX Textile Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Shri Ram Sales Corporation and M/s. Shri Balaji Sales. In relation to the abovementioned investigation, a search of the premises at

HABC No. - 273 of 2026 the seized documents do not belong to the petitioner. From the aforementioned facts, it is evident that the petitioner has been subjected to multiple investigations by different jurisdictional officers of the same revenue department and the petitioner has been in the presence of the revenue officials for the entire day during the search proceedings and he has cooperated with the concerned officials throughout. 5. A summon under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 has been issued to the petitioner to appear before the office of DGGI, Ghaziabad Regional Unit to tender statement on 29.01.2026 at 6:00 PM. The petitioner was a part of the search conduced by the DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit in Delhi which concluded at 7:45 PM.

The illegalities and the procedural violations in the arrest of the petitioner is evident also from the fact that no address or particulars of the place of arrest has been provided in the arrest memo. Furthermore, the witness of the arrest of the petitioner is shown to be one Sri Monu son of Shyamveer, Resident of 7, Freehold, Sihani Gate, Nandgram, Ghaziabad-201001 who is not a local resident of the place of arrest and is neither an independent witness. The "reasons to believe" issued by the concerned Commissioner have not been provided to the petitioner till date, which itself is a grave violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and violates the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as laid down in the case of Radhika Agarwal Vs.

Union of India reported in (2025) 5 SCC 545. 8. The non-supply of the reasons to believe as well as the fact that the illegal arrest and detention of the Petitioner being done during search

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

HABC No. - 273 of 2026 even though the Petitioner was actually. arrested on 29.1.2026 from Delhi but shown to be arrested from Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar on 30.1.2026 and thereafter produced before the learned Magistrate at Meerut without seeking and transit remand or informing the local police station, which is illegal and arbitrary and violative of the settled law. Application for Remand came to be allowed by the Learned Magistrate granting judicial remand of the petitioner for 14 days to the Respondent authorities. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was in the custody of the revenue officials since 29.01.2026 and was detained by them illegally and thereafter taken from Delhi to Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar on 29.1.2026 and thereafter the petitioner was taken to District Meerut where the Petitioner (Corpus) was produced before the Learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut on 31.1.2026 after more than 24 hours of illegal detention and arrest.

HABC No. - 273 of 2026 "Para 4.2.1 - The grounds of arrest must be explained to the arrested person and also furnished to him in writing as an Annexure to the Arrest Memo. Acknowledgement of the same should be taken from the arrested person at the time of service of the Arrest Memo." 30. After considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties at length, we find that the main grounds of challenge made to the detention and arrest of the petitioner, as per the learned counsel for the petitioner, are that he was arrested from Delhi. He was taken to Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar on the same day, i.e., 29.1.2026.

He was provided with the arrest memo and "grounds of arrest' only on 30.1.2026. He was in custody of the officials of respondent nos. 3 & 4 from 29.1.2026 and but produced before the Remand Magistrate at Meerut only on 31.1.2026 after more than 24 hours of his illegal detention and arrest. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4 is that the petitioner voluntarily appeared alongwith his son, Shri Garvit Aggarwal, after coming from Delhi to Noida Office of respondents in response to the summons. The arrest of the petitioner was affected only on 30.1.2026 as per the provisions of Section 69 of CGST Act and he was supplied with the “arrest memo” and "grounds of arrest".

HABC No. - 273 of 2026 34. The next argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was arrested from Delhi and without taking any transit remand he was taken to Noida and then after illegal detention for more than 24 hours, without taking any transit remand, he was produced before Remand Magistrate appears to be credible argument. Even if the argument of the learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4 is assumed to be correct that the petitioner was called from Delhi in response to summons then he should have been permitted to return to Delhi, which was not done. He was detained at Noida without any transit remand taken from Delhi court which is clear violation of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Priya Indoria Vs.

Revenue / respondent submissions

HABC No. - 273 of 2026 23. It is pertinent to submit that even though the impugned Remand Order dated 31.1.2026 records that the 'reasons to believe' were produced before the Learned Magistrate at the time of hearing, however, the same was never provided or served upon the Petitioner (Corpus), therefore, the Petitioner was deprived of his valuable right to challenge the same and effectively oppose the remand application. Thus, there has been a grave violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, the impugned Order dated 31.1.2026 is illegal and liable to be set aside. 24. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4 has submitted that it is a well-settled principle of law that a writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable where the detention is pursuant to a judicial order passed by a competent court.

HABC No. - 273 of 2026 India (Supra), wherein it has been held that arrest is permissible where supported by material evidence and recorded reasons, subject to compliance with procedural safeguards. 27. In view of the above settled legal position, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is misconceived, not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 28. He has further submitted that the Petitioner was never kept in illegal custody or detention at any point of time. Shri Nitin Aggarwal voluntarily appeared along with his son, Shri Garvit Aggarwal, from Delhi to the DGGI GRU, Noida office, in response to the issued summons. The presence of the Petitioner with the officers was in connection with lawful search and investigation proceedings conducted under the CGST Act, 2017. The arrest of the Petitioner was effected on 30.01.2026 strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017, based on credible material available on record. The arrest memo and grounds of arrest were duly prepared and served upon the Petitioner in compliance with legal requirements. The movement of the Petitioner during the course of investigation was lawful and cannot be termed as illegal detention. 29. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4 has further pointed out to the guidelines for arrest and bail in relation to offences punishable under CGST Act, 2017 brought on record as Annexure No. S.C.A.-4 wherein paragraph no.4.2.1 of the instructions after amendment have been brought on record. The same reads as follows:-

State of Karnataka and others, (2024) 4 SCC 749. 35. We have further found that in the “grounds of arrest” brought on record as Annexure No.CA-2 to the counter affidavit by respondent nos. 3 & 4, there is no Document Identification Number (D.I.N.) mentioned over the same, which was again in violation of the guidelines of the respondent nos. 3 & 4 that every system generated document will have D.I.N. The explanation submitted by learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4 that since the “grounds of arrest” was part of the “arrest memo”, therefore, D.I.N. mentioned on “arrest memo” was the same for the “grounds of arrest” also is not correct.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

HABC No. - 273 of 2026 been recorded in the arrest memo or in the grounds of arrest to satisfy the requirements of para 3.2 of the said Instruction No. 2/2022. Therefore, on this ground alone the arrest of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the settled principles of law. The fact that the petitioner was detained on 29.01.2026 is also evident from the fact that the statement of the petitioner is dated 29.01.2026. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2025) 6- SCC-545 has affirmed the settled law that the power to arrest a person without a warrant and without instituting a criminal case is a drastic and extreme power and as such, the "reasons to believe" are required to be furnished to the arrestee.

HABC No. - 273 of 2026 guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416. 20. Since no address of place of arrest was mentioned nor was the witness of arrest a local resident of the place of arrest, therefore, the Arrest Memo was itself illegal, rendering the arrest of the petitioner illegal. The impugned Order dated 31.1.2026 is contrary to the settled principle of law that at the time of Remand the Magistrate has to consider the material on record and apply his judicial mind to conclude whether the arrest of the detenue was legal or not.

However, in the present case, neither any material on record has been considered nor any finding has been returned as to whether the arrest of the petitioner was illegal or not. Therefore, the impugned Remand Order dated 31.1.2026 is manifestly illegal, unreasoned, void-ab-initio and liable to be set aside and the arrest of the Petitioner is liable to be quashed. 21. It is very much evident from the Statement of Petitioner itself that the same was recorded on 29.1.2026 at Delhi and therefore, there was no need or jurisdiction for the petitioner to travel to Noida or Meerut. Furthermore, if the arrest was based upon the statement of the Petitioner, then, such arrest ought to have taken place at the place of recording of statement of the Petitioner i.e.

HABC No. - 273 of 2026 Shri Nitin Aggarwal was lawfully arrested under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 and was produced before the competent Magistrate within the prescribed time, whereupon judicial remand was duly granted. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable in view of the settled legal position. 25. It is further a settled proposition that economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies and huge loss to the public exchequer stand on a different footing and are required to be dealt with a strict approach. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, judgment dated 9 th May, 2013, S.C. CrA(730/2013) wherein it was held that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be viewed seriously. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin Johari, Judgment dated 12th September 2019 S.C. (Cr.A No.1381 of 2019), has emphasized that in cases involving economic offences, the magnitude of the offence and its impact on society are relevant considerations, and such offences require a stringent approach. 26. The powers of arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 have been validly exercised in the present case, strictly in accordance with law, after due formation of "reason to believe" based on credible material including documentary evidence, electronic records, and Shri Nitin Aggarwal's own voluntary statement. The constitutional validity and procedural safeguards relating to arrest under fiscal statutes have been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of

HABC No. - 273 of 2026 Hussain Allah Detha Alias ... vs Assistant Collector Of Customs (P .), 1990 SCC Online Bombay 3 paragraph 8). 33. In view of the above definition of arrest, we find that the petitioner was taken into custody/illegal detention by the officials of respondent nos. 3 & 4 on 29.1.2026 which as per the respondents, was not his arrest, but appearance of the petitioner before them in response to their summons, but there is nothing on record to prove that on 29.1.2026 the petitioner was permitted to leave the office of respondents and come again on 30.1.2026 when his arrest was effected at Noida on paper under Section 69 C.G.S.T.

Act. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner was illegally detained/arrested on 29.1.2026. His arrest memo was prepared on 30.1.2026 at 03:53 p.m. and thereafter he was produced before the Remand Magistrate on 31.1.2026 at Meerut. The absence of the mentioning of place of arrest at Noida shows that his arrest was made at Delhi or some other place, which is not certain. The Apex Court in the case of D.K. Basu (Supra) clearly directed that the place of arrest of an accused should be clearly mentioned in the arrest memo, but in this case we find that the place of arrest and venue of the custody of the petitioner have also not been disclosed.

Operative decision and relief

Once a person is produced before a Magistrate and remanded to custody, the detention derives its authority from such judicial order and cannot be termed as illegal. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, 1974 (4) SCC 141, Darjeeling, wherein it was held that the legality of detention must be examined with reference to the subsisting judicial order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saurabh Kumar v. Jailor, Koneila Jail, 2014 (13) SCC 436 has categorically held that once an accused is remanded to judicial custody by a competent Magistrate, a writ of Habeas Corpus would not lie, as the custody cannot be said to be unlawful.

Similarly, in State of Maharashtra v. Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee, 2018 (9) SCC 745 the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that Habeas Corpus is not maintainable when the detention is in pursuance of a valid remand order passed by a judicial authority. In the present case,

There is no signature of the petitioner below the same nor there is signature of his son, Garvit Aggrawal, on the memo of arrest. The arrest of the petitioner is shown to have been made on 03:53 p.m. at Noida, but the place fromwhere he was arrested has not been mentioned in the arrest memo. 32. Argument regarding the illegal detention/arrest of the petitioner on 29.1.2026 requires consideration. The word “arrest” is not defined anywhere in the Code of Criminal Procedure/B.N.S.S. In its natural sense "arrest" means the restraint on or deprivation of one's personal liberty. It starts with the arrester taking a person into his custody by action or words restraining him from moving anywhere beyond the arrester's control, and it continues until the person so restrained is either released from custody or, having been brought before a Magistrate, is remanded in custody by the Magistrate's judicial act (See: Ashak

HABC No. - 273 of 2026 but his receipt also does not bears his signature below. Therefore there is complete violation of law regarding the detention and production of arrestee before the Magistrate committed by the officials of respondent nos. 3 & 4. We further find that the remand order passed by the Magistrate is without application of mind and in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madhu Limay, (1969)1 SCC 292. 36. We further find that the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding service of “reasons of believe” on the petitioner cannot be accepted by this Court since one of us (Hon’ble Siddharth. J) has decided while sitting in another division bench vide the case of Jai Kumar Aggrawal Vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence and three other, Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.139 of 2026 that “reasons to believe” are not required to be furnished to arrested person. It is only for the court to peruse the same and verify whether the arrest of the arrestee person is justified or not. 37. In view of the above we hold that the detention, arrest and remand of the petitioner is absolutely against the requirements of law and therefore, the petitioner is directed to set at liberty forthwith. 38. The remand order dated 31.1.2026 passed by the Remand Magistrate is hereby quashed. 39. The above noted petition is allowed.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Nitin Aggarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others concerns issue and context: the above noted writ petition has been filed praying for following reliefs:- i. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus directing the respondents herein to produce and release the corpus/petitioner from their illegal custody while declaring the arrest, detention and subsequent remand of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary null and void. ia. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and to quash and set aside the impugned remand order dated 31.1.2026 (annexure-16 to the amended writ petition) as well as any subsequent remand order/s as being illegal. ii. issue any other writ, order or direction, which this hon'ble court may deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case. iii. award the cost of the petition. operative disposition: in view of the above we hold that the… The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 273 of 2026.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Allowed / set aside” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: The above noted writ petition has been filed praying for following reliefs:- I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents herein to produce and release the corpus/petitioner from their illegal custody while declaring the arrest, detention and subsequent remand of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary null and void. IA. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and to quash and set aside the impugned remand order dated 31.1.2026 (Annexure-16 to the amended writ petition) as well as any subsequent remand order/s as being illegal. II. Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case. III. Award the cost of the petition. Operative disposition: In view of the above we hold that the… Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 58; GST statutory provision - Section 69; GST statutory provision - Section 70—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 58; GST statutory provision - Section 69; GST statutory provision - Section 70 and the decision date 2026-04-03; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is Nitin Aggarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, the proceeding is HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 273 of 2026, and the decision is dated 2026-04-03. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddharth; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 58; GST statutory provision - Section 69; GST statutory provision - Section 70. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Allowed / set aside. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 58 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 69 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 70 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• Mohd. Akib v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• M/s Betterbot Tech Services Private Limited v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• Sandeep Singhal v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• M/s Vrinda Automation v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Search, Summons & Arrest

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY