Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 1; GST statutory provision - Section 2; GST statutory provision - Section 4; GST statutory provision - Section 4(1); GST statutory provision - Section 4(2); GST statutory provision - Section 5; GST statutory provision - Section 9; GST statutory provision - Section 11; GST statutory provision - Section 13; GST statutory provision - Section 19; GST statutory provision - Section 19(1); GST statutory provision - Section 22(1); GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 26; GST statutory provision - Section 32; GST statutory provision - Section 32(3); GST statutory provision - Section 36; GST statutory provision - Section 41

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: Before us, the ratio in Om Prakash (supra) has been questioned on various grounds. For the following reasons, we are not inclined to go into all the issues: • First, the decision in Om Prakash (supra) was pronounced on 30.09.2011 and held the field for more than 12 years. • Secondly, and more significantly, it is apparent that the legislature has accepted the ratio of the said decision and made specific amendments to the Customs Act. The ratio is equally given effect to and incorporated in the GST Act. Operative disposition: We, accordingly, answer the question in the aforesaid terms. The matters are directed to be listed before an appropriate Bench in the week commencing 17.03.2025 for final hearing and
• 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

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.1534 OF 2018) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.2971 OF 2018) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.4078 OF 2018) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.7408 OF 2018) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.11049 OF 2018) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.244 OF 2019) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.3647 OF 2019) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.5153 OF 2019)

W.P .(Crl.) No.336 of 2018 & Connected matters Page 2 of 63 CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS.4322-4324 OF 2019) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.4546 OF 2019) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 9541 OF 2019) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.3366 OF 2020) CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.20310 OF 2021) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.6660 OF 2020) WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.6 OF 2021 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.40 OF 2021 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.47 OF 2021 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.1031 OF 2021) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.1107 OF 2021) WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.144 OF 2021 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.445 OF 2023 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.585 OF 2023 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.11839 OF 2019) TRANSFERRED CASE (CRIMINAL) NO.5 OF 2018 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.118 OF 2019 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.119 OF 2019 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.6834 OF 2019) WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.212 OF 2019 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.239 OF 2019 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.253 OF 2019

W.P .(Crl.) No.336 of 2018 & Connected matters Page 3 of 63 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.261 OF 2019 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.263 OF 2019 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.266 OF 2019 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.267 OF 2019 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.273 OF 2019 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.286 OF 2019 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.287 OF 2019 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.285 OF 2019 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.288 OF 2019 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.298 OF 2019 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.299 OF 2019 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.306 OF 2019 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.346 OF 2019 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.647 OF 2020) WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.387 OF 2020 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.9 OF 2020 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.1732 OF 2020) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.618 OF 2020) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.2023 OF 2020) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.6456 OF 2020) WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.36 OF 2020 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.35 OF 2020 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.49 OF 2020 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.73 OF 2020 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.93 OF 2020

W.P .(Crl.) No.336 of 2018 & Connected matters Page 4 of 63 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.124 OF 2020 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.140 OF 2020 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.2814 OF 2020) WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.142 OF 2020 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.145 OF 2020 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.184 OF 2020 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.221 OF 2020 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.223 OF 2020 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.228 OF 2020 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.286 OF 2020 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.329 OF 2020 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.5536 OF 2020) WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.380 OF 2020 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.6172 OF 2020) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.6303 OF 2020) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1401 OF 2020 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.411 OF 2020 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.410 OF 2020 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.4 OF 2021 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.56 OF 2021 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.33 OF 2021 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.1073 OF 2021) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.1072 OF 2021) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS.2050-2054 OF 2021)

W.P .(Crl.) No.336 of 2018 & Connected matters Page 5 of 63 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.301 OF 2021 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.6338 OF 2021) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.6847 OF 2021) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. OF 2025) (ARISING OUT OF DIARY NO.31616 OF 2021) WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.175 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.222 OF 2022 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.6395 OF 2022) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.10421 OF 2022) WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.402 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.385 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.426 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.434 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.453 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.456 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.466 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.500 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.506 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.516 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.502 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.7 OF 2023 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.9 OF 2023 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.24 OF 2023 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.54 OF 2023 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.209 OF 2023 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.120 OF 2023

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

17. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners have also relied upon Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan and Another.24 The submission was that since a customs officer is not a police officer, anyone arrested under the Customs Act should be sent to judicial custody. Deepak Mahajan (supra) answers this conundrum, albeit an entirely different issue – whether persons arrested under the Customs Act, on being produced before a Magistrate, can be committed to the custody of a customs officer.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

2. The fountainhead of legal controversy regarding the power to arrest under the Customs Act, 19621 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017,2 stems from the decision of a three Judge Bench of this Court in Om Prakash and Another v. Union of India and Another.3 Before this decision, offences under the Customs Act were treated as non-bailable and once arrested, the accused would be detained for a few months before being released on bail. Om Prakash (supra) observed that the offences under the Customs Act and the Central Excise Act, 19444 were non-cognizable and, therefore, even if the officers had the power to arrest, 5 they could do so only after obtaining a warrant from the Magistrate in terms of Section 416 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.7 It

W.P .(Crl.) No.336 of 2018 & Connected matters Page 15 of 63 without a warrant. 12 Therefore, without an order from the Magistrate and a warrant, a police officer cannot arrest an accused for a non-cognizable offence.

8. After the 2012 Amendment, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, offences provided in clauses (a) and (b) above are to be treated as cognizable offences. The 2019 Amendment added clauses (c) and (d) to Section 104(4), and these are again cognizable offences. Section 104(5) states that all offences other than those provided under Section 104(4) are non-cognizable. Therefore,

11. Therefore, given the amendments enacted after Om Prakash (supra) — the 2012 Amendment, the 2013 Amendment, and the 2019 Amendment — certain categories of offences have been carved out and explicitly made cognizable in terms of Section 104(4). Some of the cognizable offences have been made non-bailable in terms of Section 104(6). All other offences under the Customs Act are non-cognizable, unless carved out in Section 104(4), and bailable, as they are excluded in Section 104(6).

W.P .(Crl.) No.336 of 2018 & Connected matters Page 19 of 63 to address the writ petitioners ’ submission that customs officers are police officers. In our opinion, this submission is both unfounded and flawed.

113. Though an authorised officer of Enforcement or Customs is not undertaking an investigation as contemplated under Chapter XII of the Code, yet those officers are enjoying some analogous powers such as arrest, seizures, interrogation etc. Besides, a statutory duty is enjoined on them to inform the arrestee of the grounds for such arrest as contemplated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Code. Therefore, they have necessarily to make records of their statutory functions showing the name of the informant, as well as the name of the person who violated any other provision of the Code and who has been guilty of an offence punishable under the Act, nature of information received by them, time of the arrest, seizure of the contraband if any and the

Operative decision and relief

18. Deepak Mahajan (supra) addresses the interplay of Section 167 of the Code25 and Section 104 of the Customs Act. Section 167(2) of the Code allows a police officer to request police remand/custody of a person arrested for a period not exceeding 15 days when an investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours of the arrest. Deepak Mahajan (supra) clarifies that Section 167(2) of the Code applies equally to Section 104 of the Customs Act. Thus, a Magistrate has the

68. In Centre for PIL v. Union of India, this Court observed that in judicial review, it is permissible to examine the question of illegality in the decision -making process. A decision which is vitiated by extraneous considerations can be set aside. Similarl y, in Uttamrao Shivdas Jankhar v. Ranjitsinh Vijaysinh Mohite Patil, elaborating on the expression “decision making process”, this Court held that judicial interference is warranted when there is no proper application of mind on the requirements of law. An error in the decision-making process crops up where the authority fails to consider a relevant factor and considers irrelevant factors to decide the issue.”

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Others concerns issue and context: before us, the ratio in om prakash (supra) has been questioned on various grounds. for the following reasons, we are not inclined to go into all the issues: • first, the decision in om prakash (supra) was pronounced on 30.09.2011 and held the field for more than 12 years. • secondly, and more significantly, it is apparent that the legislature has accepted the ratio of the said decision and made specific amendments to the customs act. the ratio is equally given effect to and incorporated in the gst act. operative disposition: we, accordingly, answer the question in the aforesaid terms. the matters are directed to be listed before an appropriate bench in the week commencing 17.03.2025 for final hearing and The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 336 of 2018 and connected matters.

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 “Disposed” 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: Before us, the ratio in Om Prakash (supra) has been questioned on various grounds. For the following reasons, we are not inclined to go into all the issues: • First, the decision in Om Prakash (supra) was pronounced on 30.09.2011 and held the field for more than 12 years. • Secondly, and more significantly, it is apparent that the legislature has accepted the ratio of the said decision and made specific amendments to the Customs Act. The ratio is equally given effect to and incorporated in the GST Act. Operative disposition: We, accordingly, answer the question in the aforesaid terms. The matters are directed to be listed before an appropriate Bench in the week commencing 17.03.2025 for final hearing and Its practical value lies in the way the Supreme Court of India connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 1; GST statutory provision - Section 2; GST statutory provision - Section 4; GST statutory provision - Section 4(1); GST statutory provision - Section 4(2); GST statutory provision - Section 5; GST statutory provision - Section 9; GST statutory provision - Section 11; GST statutory provision - Section 13; GST statutory provision - Section 19; GST statutory provision - Section 19(1); GST statutory provision - Section 22(1); GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 26; GST statutory provision - Section 32; GST statutory provision - Section 32(3); GST statutory provision - Section 36; GST statutory provision - Section 41—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is Supreme 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 1; GST statutory provision - Section 2; GST statutory provision - Section 4; GST statutory provision - Section 4(1); GST statutory provision - Section 4(2); GST statutory provision - Section 5; GST statutory provision - Section 9; GST statutory provision - Section 11; GST statutory provision - Section 13; GST statutory provision - Section 19; GST statutory provision - Section 19(1); GST statutory provision - Section 22(1); GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 26; GST statutory provision - Section 32; GST statutory provision - Section 32(3); GST statutory provision - Section 36; GST statutory provision - Section 41 and the decision date 2025-02-27; 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 Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Others, the proceeding is Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 336 of 2018 and connected matters, and the decision is dated 2025-02-27. 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 the Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna; Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh; Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi. 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 1; GST statutory provision - Section 2; GST statutory provision - Section 4; GST statutory provision - Section 4(1); GST statutory provision - Section 4(2); GST statutory provision - Section 5; GST statutory provision - Section 9; GST statutory provision - Section 11; GST statutory provision - Section 13; GST statutory provision - Section 19; GST statutory provision - Section 19(1); GST statutory provision - Section 22(1); GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 26; GST statutory provision - Section 32; GST statutory provision - Section 32(3); GST statutory provision - Section 36; GST statutory provision - Section 41. 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 Disposed. 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 SUPREME_COURT_FINAL_REVIEW_CURATIVE_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 1 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 2 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 4 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 4(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 4(2) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 5 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 9 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 11 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 13 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 19 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 19(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 22(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 25 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 26 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 32 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 32(3) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 36 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 41 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• National Insurance Co Ltd Vs Harsolia Motors and others — Supreme Court of India · Disposed
• DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE v. GIRISH SACHDEVA — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s Power Line Air Express v. Principal Commissioner of CGST and Others — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• CGST, Delhi West v. Vishal Goyal — Delhi High Court · Disposed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 892 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