Supreme Court limited the Customs and GST Acts'

The Supreme Court last month restricted the ability of officials to conduct arrests in accordance with the Customs Act of 1962 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act of 2017.

The authority granted to customs officers under these acts is "analogous" to the authority granted to police for arrest, search, and seizure, the court ruled in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India. This means that they are subject to the same restrictions and procedural requirements as police under the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure.

An arrestee's right to appear before a magistrate within 24 hours after her arrest, an official's need to inform the arrestee's friend or family, and other procedural requirements include.

The most recent ruling is a part of the SC's ongoing efforts to limit the broad jurisdiction of the prosecuting authorities under stringent laws such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Supreme Court outlined the requirements that must be fulfilled for the ED to legitimately make an arrest under the PMLA in the case of Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, which was decided last year. In the Radhika Agarwal case, the court effectively applied these criteria to arrests conducted in accordance with the Customs and CGST Acts.

A magistrate's warrant is not required for arrests for some offences that are deemed "cognisable" under the Customs and CGST Acts. For example, serious infractions such as evading customs duties of over Rs 50 lakhs are categorized as punishable under Section 104(4) of the Customs Act.

The most recent ruling is a part of the SC's ongoing efforts to limit the broad jurisdiction of the prosecuting authorities under stringent laws such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Supreme Court outlined the requirements that must be fulfilled for the ED to legitimately make an arrest under the PMLA in the case of Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, which was decided last year. In the Radhika Agarwal case, the court effectively applied these criteria to arrests conducted in accordance with the Customs and CGST Acts.

A magistrate's warrant is not required for arrests for some offences that are deemed "cognisable" under the Customs and CGST Acts. For example, serious infractions such as evading customs duties of over Rs 50 lakhs are categorized as punishable under Section 104(4) of the Customs Act.

The most recent ruling is a part of the SC's ongoing efforts to limit the broad jurisdiction of the prosecuting authorities under stringent laws such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Supreme Court outlined the requirements that must be fulfilled for the ED to legitimately make an arrest under the PMLA in the case of Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, which was decided last year. In the Radhika Agarwal case, the court effectively applied these criteria to arrests conducted in accordance with the Customs and CGST Acts.

A magistrate's warrant is not required for arrests for some offences that are deemed "cognisable" under the Customs and CGST Acts. For example, serious infractions such as evading customs duties of over Rs 50 lakhs are categorized as punishable under Section 104(4) of the Customs Act.

The petitioners sought to remove the arrest powers of CGST and Customs Act officials, but the court rejected their plea. To reach the conclusion that there is "some force in the petitioners’ submission that the assessees are compelled to pay tax as a condition for not being arrested," it did consider data on the number of arrests, the amount recovered, and the number of GST offence cases that have been filed since 2017.

The Supreme Court ruled that tax authorities could not legally threaten someone with arrest to coerce them into paying past-due taxes. It made the point that those under such pressure or intimidation ought to put an end to these cases.