The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on Thursday set aside the arrest and remand of businessman Jai Kumar Aggarwal in a GST intelligence case, holding that the procedure followed by the authorities was legally flawed.
A Division Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by Aggarwal and directed his immediate release from custody.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Clears Way for Police Recruit, Says Minor, Quashed FIR Can’t Block Appointment
Background of the Case
Aggarwal was detained on December 29, 2025, during a search conducted under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act at his residence. He was formally arrested on January 16, 2026, under Section 69 of the Act by officers of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Ghaziabad.
Challenging his arrest, Aggarwal approached the High Court contending that the mandatory safeguards were not followed. His counsel argued that neither the “grounds of arrest” nor the “reasons to believe” were properly supplied at the time of arrest, as required by law and recent Supreme Court rulings.
The petition also questioned the remand order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, on January 17, 2026.
Arguments by the Petitioner
Senior counsel appearing for Aggarwal told the Bench that the arrest memo was handed over without annexures and that the “grounds of arrest” were not furnished in writing at the time of arrest.
He relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Radhika Agrawal, where the top court emphasized procedural safeguards in GST arrests. He also cited Satendra Kumar Antil, arguing that arrest should not be routine in offences punishable up to seven years.
Referring to departmental circulars, counsel submitted that the law now requires written grounds of arrest to be supplied as an annexure to the arrest memo, with acknowledgment from the accused.
“The remand becomes illegal if mandatory safeguards are ignored,” the petitioner’s counsel argued.
Stand of the GST Department
Counsel for the DGGI opposed the petition, asserting that the Commissioner had duly recorded “reasons to believe” before authorising the arrest.
He argued that the CGST Act does not mandate supplying the “reasons to believe” to the accused. According to him, the internal satisfaction of the Commissioner is sufficient under Section 69.
The department also maintained that the grounds of arrest were explained to Aggarwal and that all procedural requirements were complied with before he was produced before the Magistrate.
Court’s Observations
The Bench first examined whether the writ petition was maintainable. It noted that if a remand order is found illegal, a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable.
On the issue of “reasons to believe,” the Court observed that under the GST law, the Commissioner must record such reasons. However, the Act does not expressly require them to be supplied to the accused. The Bench rejected the petitioner’s contention on this limited point.
The more critical question, the judges noted, was whether the “grounds of arrest” were furnished in compliance with the latest circular dated January 13, 2025.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s guidance, the Bench observed that the grounds of arrest must be explained and provided in writing as an annexure to the arrest memo.
“In the arrest memo, there is no mention of any annexure,” the Court recorded. It added that there was a serious factual dispute about whether the written grounds were supplied before the remand proceedings.
The Court also observed that the remand order did not clearly reflect compliance with the mandatory safeguards.
“We find that the remand order suffers from legal infirmity and cannot be sustained,” the Bench held.
Decision of the Court
Setting aside the remand order dated January 17, 2026, the High Court allowed the habeas corpus petition.
It directed that Jai Kumar Aggarwal be released from custody forthwith upon production of the order.
The Court clarified that the authorities are free to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if warranted.
The judgment was delivered on February 13, 2026.
Case Title: Jai Kumar Aggarwal vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence & Others
Case No.: Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 139 of 2026
Decision Date: February 13, 2026
