Write It, Serve It, Mean It”: Why GST Arrests Fail Without Written Grounds at the Time of Arrest

"Write It, Serve It, Mean It": Why GST Arrests Fail Without Written Grounds at the Time of Arrest

Arrest under the GST regime is meant to be exceptional, not routine. Both the Constitution and the CGST Act demand transparency and discipline when personal liberty is curtailed. Today, the law is unambiguous: if officers exercise the power to arrest under Section 69, they must convey the grounds of arrest-clearly, specifically, and preferably in writing-at the time of arrest. Skipping this step risks having the arrest set aside, undermines the prosecution, and can taint the charge-sheet that follows.

The legal bedrock: Constitution + CGST Act

Article 22(1) of the Constitution guarantees that no person shall be detained without being informed of the reasons for arrest. This is not a mere formality; it is a fundamental right intended to prevent arbitrary deprivation of liberty and to allow the arrestee to seek immediate legal remedies-bail, a challenge to remand, or even habeas corpus. Courts have repeatedly read this guarantee strictly.

On the statutory side, Section 69(2) of the CGST Act squarely aligns with Article 22(1): the authorised officer “shall inform the grounds of arrest” to the person arrested. Read with Section 69(1) and Section 132, the statute requires that the Commissioner first form, and record, reasons to believe that specified offences have been committed and are punishable in the manner the section contemplates. Only then may an authorised officer arrest-and when they do, the grounds must be conveyed to the arrestee at that time.

“Grounds of arrest” ≠ generic reasons

The Supreme Court has drawn a practical and important distinction between (a) broad “reasons for arrest” that might apply to many cases and (b) “grounds of arrest,” which must capture the concrete, case-specific facts that necessitate this person’s arrest now. These grounds have to be communicated in writing; merely mouthing vague phrases or gesturing at the case file is not enough. In Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (15 May 2024), the Court underscored that meaningful written communication of the grounds is indispensable because it equips the arrestee to resist remand and seek bail.The Court’s earlier decision in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (3 Oct 2023) pulled no punches either: in the PMLA context, it stressed the necessity of written grounds of arrest being furnished to the accused. Although that case arose under a different statute, constitutional safeguards travel with the person, not the statute book-and tax arrests are not exempt from these baseline guarantees.

Delhi High Court on GST arrests: writing is “sacrosanct”

Building on those Supreme Court principles, the Delhi High Court in Kshitij Ghildiyal v. DGGI (16 Dec 2024) [2024(12)LCX0193] applied the rule to Section 69 CGST arrests and treated written communication of grounds as sacrosanct. Where the grounds were not communicated in writing, the Court viewed the arrest as illegal. This judgment has become a touchstone for GST investigations because it speaks directly to Section 69 practice. The administrative follow-through: CBIC Instruction No. 01/2025-GST Recognising the judiciary’s clear direction, the CBIC issued Instruction No. 01/2025-GST on 13 January 2025. It directs that the grounds of arrest must be provided in writing at the time the arrest memo is served-and officers should obtain acknowledgment from the arrestee. The Instruction cites Pankaj Bansal and Kshitij Ghildiyal and is designed to harmonise field practice with constitutional and statutory mandates. Treat this Instruction as an operational checklist: if it isn’t followed, the arrest is on thin ice. Courts across the country have been consistent on the broader principle as well: failure to promptly inform the arrestee of the grounds violates Article 22(1) and can vitiate the arrest. Recent Supreme Court commentary has reiterated that point in other criminal contexts too, underlining that this is a constitutional baseline, not a tax-specific peculiarity.

What must happen before and at the time of arrest

1) Prior satisfaction under Section 69(1) read with Section 132 Arrest is not a first resort. The Commissioner must record reasons to believe, founded on verifiable material, that the person has committed one of the offences in Section 132(1)(a)-(d) and that the case falls within the punishments referenced in Section 132(1)(i)/(ii) or Section 132(2). This is not a box-ticking exercise; in court, the prosecution will have to produce the record to prove such satisfaction existed before authorising arrest. Mechanical authorisations or reliance on untested allegations invite judicial pushback and can erode the charge-sheet’s credibility.

2) At the time of arrest: serve written grounds When the authorised officer executes the arrest, the grounds of arrest must be communicated, in writing, then and there-not “later” and not “on file”. The communication should be in a language the arrestee understands, should be signed (with a refusal recorded, if any), and a copy should be handed over with acknowledgment. This is the clear through-line from Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, Kshitij Ghildiyal, and the CBIC Instruction.

3) Practical content of “grounds” Courts expect something case-specific and intelligible, not boilerplate. A compliant write-up typically identifies: (i) the specific transactions or modus alleged, (ii) the quantum involved (even if provisional), (iii) the role attributed to the arrestee, (iv) the Section 132 clauses invoked, and (v) why arrest is necessary (e.g., risk of tampering, flight risk) now. This is precisely the kind of detail courts say enables an arrestee to contest remand and seek bail effectively Consequences of non-compliance

Arrest set aside / immediate release: If grounds are not meaningfully conveyed in writing, courts have ordered release and treated the arrest as illegal. That applies even outside GST, underscoring the constitutional nature of the defect.
Downstream prosecution weakened: An arrest made casually can contaminate later steps-statements, recoveries, and even the charge-sheet can be challenged as fruits of an unlawful deprivation of liberty.
Administrative exposure: Failure to follow the CBIC Instruction may attract internal scrutiny and undermine the department’s position when the arrest memo and case diary are produced in court.

Officer’s pocket checklist (use before and during arrest)

1. Record “reasons to believe” under Section 69(1) with supporting material mapped to Section 132(1)(a-d) and the applicable punishment pathway. Keep the file court-ready.
2. Draft the grounds of arrest in writing-case-specific, clear, and in a language the arrestee understands. Avoid templates.
3. Serve the grounds at the time of arrest with acknowledgment on the arrest memo; if the arrestee refuses to sign, record the refusal in the presence of witnesses.
4. Inform the nominee/family without delay and document compliance. Courts increasingly view this as part of the fairness matrix around arrest.
5. Preserve language/translation evidence (e.g., endorsement that contents were read over in Hindi and understood), because courts look for “meaningful communication,” not mere delivery.

Defence playbook for the arrestee

Ask for a written copy of the grounds on the spot; note the date/time and witnesses.
If refused or delayed, record the protest in writing or on video where lawful, and communicate the lapse to counsel immediately.
Challenge remand and custody by pointing to the constitutional/statutory breach; courts have treated such non-service as fatal to custody.
Scrutinise the authorisation trail: demand production of the Commissioner’s “reasons to believe” and check whether the invoked clauses of Section 132 genuinely fit the alleged facts. A mismatch can unravel the arrest’s foundation.

Why this matters even after the arrest memo

Some officers assume that the defect can be “cured” later by adding a paragraph in the case diary or handing over a gist subsequently. That gamble rarely works. The courts’ message is consistent: the duty is contemporaneous-at the time of arrest, not at leisure. Where agencies have tried to rely on oral explanations or post-facto paperwork, courts have treated such efforts as inadequate against Article 22(1).
Bottom line

Arrests under Section 69 are constitution-sensitive actions. The law now demands three things in tandem:

1. Recorded reasons to believe tied to specific Section 132 offences and punishments, before authorisation;

2. Written, case-specific grounds of arrest, served at the time of arrest and acknowledged; and

3. Meaningful communication-in a language understood by the arrestee-so they can immediately exercise their rights.

When these conditions are honoured, the investigation proceeds on firm footing. When they are ignored, the arrest-and sometimes the case-can collapse. In simple terms: write it, serve it, and mean it. That is both the constitutional promise and the operational rulebook for GST arrests today.

Disclaimer: The information given in this article is solely for purpose of understanding the law. It is completely based on the interpretation of the author and cannot be constituted as a legal advise, the author of this article and Lawcrux team is not responsible for any legal issues if arises on the basis of the interpretation given above.