Sandeep Singhal v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence and Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 69; GST statutory provision - Section 132; GST statutory provision - Section 132(1)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The present petition has been filed praying for following reliefs:- "(i) To issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the Remand Magistrate/ACJM Court No. 07, Meerut, in Case No. 1629/2025, under section 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017, Department DGGI, Meerut, and all consequential proceedings thereof. (ii) to issue any other and further writ, order, or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this Case." Operative disposition: The arrest, detention and remand of the petitioner is held to be illegal 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

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 257 of 2026 Court No. - 44 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J. 1. Heard Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh and Sri Jai Prakash, learned counsel for petitioner; Sri Dhananjay Awasthi and Sri Lakshya Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.1; learned A.G.A for State-respondent no.2 & 3 and perused the material taken on record. 2. The present petition has been filed praying for following reliefs:- "(i) To issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the Remand Magistrate/ACJM Court No. 07, Meerut, in Case No. 1629/2025, under section 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017, Department DGGI, Meerut, and all consequential proceedings thereof.

(ii) to issue any other and further writ, order, or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this Case." 3. On 31.03.2026 the following order was passed by this Court:- "1. Heard Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh and Sri Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for petitioner; Sri Dhananjay Awasthi and Sri Lakshya Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.1; learned AGA for State respondent nos. 2 and 3 and perused the material on record. 2. The above noted habeas corpus writ petition has been filed praying for following reliefs:- "(i) To issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the Remand Magistrate/ACJM Court No.

may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this Case." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is proprietor of M/s. Balaji Enterprises and Director of M/s. Hanuman Enterprises O.P.C. Private Ltd., which are engaged in trading of F.M.C.G., goods. The petitioner is also looking after the work of M/s. Taniya Eterprises which has different proprietors. On 01.07.2025 a search was made by the respondent no.1 at the premises and office of petitioner and certain articles were seized and Panchayatnama was prepared. 4. Against the aforesaid seizure the petitioner approached Hon'ble Delhi High Court by filing writ petition which was disposed of vide order dated 06.10.2025 directing that the petitioner shall appear in person before the G.S.T., Department and in presence of authorized officer copies of the entire set of documents and data shall be provided to him and the petitioner was directed to cooperate with the investigation.

7. Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has vehemently opposed the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and he has drawn the attention of the Court to the arrest memo of the petitioner brought on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition and has submitted that the petitioner was provided a copy of arrest memo and he has admitted informing his brother, Rajiv Singhal, about his arrest on 14.01.2026 and also admitted to have received the "grounds of arrest" in writing. He has further submitted that the arrest memo dated 14.01.2026 was provided to the petitioner and also his brother, Rajiv Singhal, on HABC No.

Therefore, the petitioner has no case. The writ petition has been filed on incorrect grounds and deserves to be dismissed. 9. This Court has already settled in the case of Jai Kumar Agarwal Vs. Director General of G.S.T. and 3 Others(Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 139/2026) that the "reasons to believe" are not required to supplied to the accused and he is only entitled to be provided with the "grounds of arrest" which have already been provided to the petitioner, but the "grounds of arrest" were not shown in annexure to the "memo of arrest" as per the judgment aforesaid. 10. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has relied upon the following judgments in the cases of Y.S.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

14.01.2026 and both have appended their receiving signatures on the same which has been brought on record as Annexure-C.A.-6 to the counter-affidavit. 8. He has further submitted that the documents on record clearly prove that the arguments raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner are incorrect. The arrest memo with "grounds of arrest" were clearly provided to the petitioner and his brother. Both have appended their receiving signatures on the "memo of arrest" and "grounds of arrest" too. He has submitted that the objection raised before this Court on behalf of petitioner were not raised before the Remand Magistrate as clear from the remand order itself.

Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 is granted three days time to explain their conduct. 15. List this case again on 06.04.2026. " 4. In response to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the counsel for respondent has filed supplementary counter-affidavit wherein system generated form showing the same CBIC-DIN as mentioned over the arrest memo dated 14.01.2026 has been brought on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the document is prima facie suspicious since it does not contains the time when the DIN was generated by the system. This Court has already held in the earlier order that the "ground of arrest" is HABC No.

not shown as "Annexure" in the "arrest memo". 6. This Court has further found that in the arrest memo the place of arrest of the petitioner has not been shown. Therefore, there is clear violation of the judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal Reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416. It is therefore, clear that argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the Case of Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India (2025) 6 SCC 545 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Jai Kumar Agarwal Vs.

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

Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2013 LawSuit(SC) 414; Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others 2021(223) AIC3; Zeba Khan Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2026 0 Supreme(SC) 156; Serious Fraud Investigation Office and Anr Vs. Rahul Modi and Another ETC; Vivek Harivyasi and Ors 2019 LawSuit(SC) 979 and C.S. Prasad Vs. Satyakumar and Others(Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2026(Arising out of S.L.P., (Crl)No. 397 of 2025), and has submitted that the release of the petitioner shall hamper investigation being conducted by respondent no.1 and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. After hearing the rival submissions, it would be useful to reproduce the arrest memo of the petitioner hereinbelow:- "GSTIN-07AVPPS2061R1ZP CBIC-DIN202601DNN4000000D209 File Ne-1629/2025 ARREST MEMO (To be prepared in duplicate) [under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017] 1.

207, Purva Faiyaz Ali, Meerut. Received copy of arrest Memo Sandeep14/1/36 Signature of the Arrestee: Counter Signature of Witness 14/1/26 I, SANDEEP SINGHAL, S/o Late SH, S.S. SINGHAL, have informed Shri Kajzer Singhal, about my arrest on 14-01-26, I also have been furnished grounds of my arrest in writing. Sandeep 14.01.2026 , 10.03.2026" 12. However, we find that Document Identification Number(DIN) mentioned on the "grounds of arrest" in hand written and not system generated one. 13. We further finds that the "grounds of arrest" supplied to the petitioner are not mentioned as Annexure to the "Arrest Memo" as per judgment of this Court in the case of Jai Agarwal(supra). 14.

Operative decision and relief

He was not provided with any "grounds "of arrest. He was produced before the Remand Magistrate on 15.01.2026 and vide order of date 14 days remand of petitioner was ordered by the Remand Magistrate. The petitioner was neither provided the "grounds of arrest" nor the reasons to believe and hence his remand is illegal. 6. It has further been argued that petitioner's detention is in violation of the Constitutional Mandate of Article 22. He was produced before the remand Magistrate on 15.01.2026 at about 05:00 p.m., beyond statutory period of 24 hours. Remand Magistrate has not considered that the arrest of the petitioner was illegal. Hence the arrest of the petitioner and the remand order dated 15.1.2026 passed by Remand Magistrate are absolutely illegal and deserve to be quashed.

DGGI (Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 139/2026) apart from violation of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vihan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Other (2025) 5 SCC 799, is justified. 7. The Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Goyal Vs Union of India, (2022) 7 NSC 729 directed the GST Council to implement the system of electronic DIN generation on every communication sent by State Tax Officers to tax payers and other concerned persons as to bring in transparency and accountability in tax administration. 8. In view of the above consideration the remand order dated 15.01.2026 passed by Remand Magistrate/ACJM, Court No.-VII, Meerut, is hereby quashed.

9. The arrest, detention and remand of the petitioner is held to be illegal and unconstitutional. 10. The petitioner is directed to be set free forthwith without waiting for supply of certified copy of this order. 11. The writ petition is allowed. 12. It is open for the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. April 6, 2026 Abhishek HABC No. 257 of 2026

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Sandeep Singhal v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence and Others concerns issue and context: the present petition has been filed praying for following reliefs:- "(i) to issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the remand magistrate/acjm court no. 07, meerut, in case no. 1629/2025, under section 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i) of the cgst act, 2017, department dggi, meerut, and all consequential proceedings thereof. (ii) to issue any other and further writ, order, or direction, which this hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case." operative disposition: the arrest, detention and remand of the petitioner is held to be illegal 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 HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 257 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 present petition has been filed praying for following reliefs:- "(i) To issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the Remand Magistrate/ACJM Court No. 07, Meerut, in Case No. 1629/2025, under section 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017, Department DGGI, Meerut, and all consequential proceedings thereof. (ii) to issue any other and further writ, order, or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this Case." Operative disposition: The arrest, detention and remand of the petitioner is held to be illegal and Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 69; GST statutory provision - Section 132; GST statutory provision - Section 132(1)—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 69; GST statutory provision - Section 132; GST statutory provision - Section 132(1) and the decision date 2026-04-06; 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 Sandeep Singhal v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence and Others, the proceeding is HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 257 of 2026, and the decision is dated 2026-04-06. 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 Divesh Chandra Samant. 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 69; GST statutory provision - Section 132; GST statutory provision - Section 132(1). 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 69 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 132 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 132(1) — 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
• Nitin Aggarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 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