P&H High Court Seeks Response Of ADG Of GST Dept Over Alleged Misbehaviour With Warrant Officer Sent By Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has sought a response from the GST Additional Director General and an Intelligence Officer, asking them to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for misbehaving with the warrant officer sent by the Court to inspect the office following allegations of illegal detention.

A Habeas Corpus plea was filed by a woman seeking recovery of her husband, who was allegedly illegally detained by the GST Additional Director General and an Intelligence Officer. It was found that the man was found to be detained for 30 hours without production before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "before passing any orders, an opportunity is afforded to respondents No. 2 (Gurdyal Singh Intelligence Officer) and 3 (Additional Director General GST) to show cause as to why contempt proceedings may not be initiated against them for snatching papers from the Warrant Officer and obstructing him from performing his official duty."

The Court further said that it cannot turn a Nelson's eye to such "recalcitrant misconduct" depicting a blatant disregard for the rule of law.

"Allowing such lawlessness to continue unchecked would undermine the authority and dignity of the justice administration mechanism," it added.

Perusing the report submitted by the warrant officer, the Court noted that, "the detenue remained in custody of respondents No.2 and 3 since 12:02 PM on 04.06.2025. He was only served with an arrest warrant at 8:40 PM the next day i.e. 05.06.2025. It is evident that the detenue was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate at 9:25 PM on 05.06.2025 i.e. beyond the stipulated period of 24 hours which is in direct contravention of his fundamental rights under Article 22 of the Constitution of India."

Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Warrant Officer, with the assistance of the local police, entered the Central Revenue Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh at 06:42 PM. Thereafter, he recovered the detenue from the office of Anju Sheokand, IRS where he was being guarded by one Peon working for the Department.

He added that detenue was in illegal custody of respondents GST Additional Director General and an Intelligence Officer from 12:05 PM on June 04, i.e. for a period of over 30 hours.

"The detenue was not even produced before the competent Court within the stipulated 24 hours. Further still, the detenue was forcible taken away in a convoy of 03 cars from the custody of the Warrant Officer, who was performing his official duty, as directed by the Court," the senior counsel further submitted.

The same was buttressed by the screenshots of the video attached and Subsequently, at 8:40 PM, a memo of arrest was issued by respondents, in an attempt to cover up the fact that they illegally detained the detenue.

It was submitted that the Warrant Officer appeared before the Duty Magistrate and informed the Court that the officials of the Additional Director General GST have obstructed him in discharging his official duty.

Additional Solicitor General of India submitted that detenue was never detained illegally. As a matter of fact, he was summoned in connection with an investigation in a matter pertaining to Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and was duly arrested at 8:40 PM on June 06, when his response was found to be evasive. Further, some time was sought to file a reply to controvert the submissions made by Senior Counsel for the petitioner.

After hearing the submissions, the Court said that the conduct of respondents GST Additional Director General and an Intelligence Office and other officials of the Department "is ex facie contemptuous as they have intentionally and maliciously misbehaved with the Warrant Officer and hindered him from discharging the official duty" entrusted to him by the Court.

 Consequently, the Additional Director General GST was directed to file his affidavit indicating:

(i) Complete details regarding names of the officials of the Department along with their designations, who were present at Central Revenue Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh from 06:30 PM to 09.00 PM on 05.06.2025

(ii) Status of installation of CCTV cameras at the premises of Central Revenue Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh in accordance with the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh and others (2021) 1 SCC 184.

While adjourning the matter to July 18, the Court directed that "the original record, including the arrest memos and ground of arrest as well as the medical examination report of the detenue be also produced on the next date of hearing."

Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arnav Ghai, Ms. Kashish Sahni and

Mr. R.S. Bagga, Advocates for the applicant-petitioner.

Mr. Manish Bansal, PP UT Chandigarh and Mr. Viren Sibbal, Addl. PP UT Chandigarh.

Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India

Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Mr. Suish Bindlish, Mr. Anshuman Sethi and Ms. Preeti Bansal, Advocates for respondents No. 2 and 3.

Title: BARKHA BANSAL V/S STATE OF U.T CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

Click here to read/download the court order