Gujarat High Court Clarifies That Supply of ‘Reasons to Believe’ Under Section 69 GST Act Need Not Be Verbatim Copy Signed by Commissioner

The Gujarat High Court, in its decision dated 7 May 2026, addressed the legal requirements surrounding the supply of ‘reasons to believe’ under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act) in the context of arrest and remand proceedings. The petitioner challenged the legality of his arrest and subsequent remand, contending that the verbatim ‘reasons to believe’ as recorded and signed by the Commissioner were not supplied to him, thereby rendering the arrest and detention illegal and unconstitutional.

The Court first considered the maintainability of the writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including V. Senthil Balaji v. State and State of Maharashtra v. Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee, the Court reiterated that a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable only when the detention is illegal due to non-compliance with mandatory statutory provisions or total non-application of mind. Where a judicial order of remand exists, the proper remedy is to challenge the order through statutory means unless the remand is absolutely illegal or jurisdictionally flawed.

Turning to the core issue, the Court examined Section 69 of the GST Act, which empowers the Commissioner to authorize arrests upon recording ‘reasons to believe’ that an offence under Section 132 has been committed. The petitioner argued that the statute requires the Commissioner alone to record and supply the verbatim reasons, and that any deviation—such as supply by a subordinate officer or in a non-verbatim form—vitiates the arrest.

The Court analyzed recent Supreme Court judgments, notably Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, which clarified that the ‘reasons to believe’ must be furnished to the arrestee to enable judicial review and to allow the arrestee to challenge the legality of the arrest. However, the Supreme Court also recognized that in exceptional cases, redaction or non-disclosure of certain details may be justified, subject to judicial scrutiny.

Upon reviewing the facts, the High Court found that the ‘reasons to believe’ recorded by the Additional Director General (acting as Commissioner) were indeed furnished to the petitioner. The Court scrutinized the e-office notings and concluded that the substance of the reasons supplied to the petitioner matched those recorded by the Commissioner, and there was no material variance. The Court emphasized that neither Section 69 of the GST Act nor the cited judgments prescribe a specific mode or require a verbatim, signed copy to be supplied. The essential requirement is that the arrestee receives the reasons in substance, enabling him to challenge the arrest.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the absence of a verbatim, signed copy rendered the arrest illegal. It held that the form and manner of supply are immaterial as long as the arrestee is furnished with the substance of the ‘reasons to believe.’ The Court further noted that the petitioner had acknowledged receipt of the reasons and that the grounds of arrest were explained to him in a language he understood.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was substantial compliance with the statutory mandate and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The Court clarified that the supply of ‘reasons to believe’ under Section 69 of the GST Act does not require a verbatim, signed copy from the Commissioner, and substantial compliance suffices to meet the requirements of law.