GST Act: Dept is carrying out abrupt arrests driven by some inexplicable urgency rather than necessity. However, it does not pursue the trial with the same urgency. The slow-paced trials is symptomatic of a systemic problem

(i) The GST regime was implemented on 01.07.2017 and interestingly, since its commencement, only a solitary conviction has been made in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh put together. Further, the empirical data suggests that notices under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act are served in a very few cases. It can be safely inferred that where notice is served, arrests are not being made however, where arrests are in fact made, no prior notice is served. Further, the respondent seems to be habitual of initiating proceedings but not seeing them through, a trend appropriately showcased by the data provided by all 08 DGGI jurisdictions in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh. While it is understandable that economic offences require sophisticated investigation, the same cannot go on indefinitely. Much to the concern of this Court, the empirical data makes it abundantly clear that securing a conviction and concluding the trial is not a matter of priority for the respondent as all its energy is devoted towards curtailing liberty of the prospective accused. 12. While this Court is not oblivious to the gravity of economic offences and its impact, of late, it has been observed that the involvement of the criminal justice system in cases pertaining to the CGST Act seemingly begins at the stage of arrest and ends when a bail is secured. Allowing such tendencies to go unchecked would raise serious doubts about the efficacy of investigation, which naturally weakens the faith of the public in the justice dispensation mechanism. Moreover, this Court is of the considered opinion that the slow-paced trials stemming from complaints under Section 132 of the CGST Act and the departure from the established procedure qua Section 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, throughout the States of Punjab, Haryana as well as Union Territory of Chandigarh is symptomatic of a systemic problem. As such, it would be against the interest of justice to shield the prosecuting agencies from accountability with regard to timely conclusion of trials.

(ii) The pattern displayed by the respondent officials shows a concerning deviation from the procedure established by law. The CGST Act is clear in its mandate and does not leave scope for ambiguity for the respondent to justify the conduct of its officials. In practice, the respondent is seen carrying out abrupt arrests, driven by some inexplicable urgency rather than necessity. However, as the data suggests, the respondent does not pursue the trial with the same urgency. Perhaps, the respondent ought to deliberate upon the fact that the goal of initiating criminal prosecution is not achieved by securing only an arrest and modify their approach to serve the larger purpose. Moreover, the prolonged legal battle not only infringes upon the right to speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India but also causes irreparable harm to the psychological well being as well as the reputation of the accused.

(iii) Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that the right to speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is a fundamental concept in criminal jurisprudence and a sine qua non for proper administration of justice. It must be noted that ‘trial’ herein encompasses investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial etc. i.e. everything commencing with the accusation to the final verdict of the last Court. Further still, it is trite law that no person can be deprived of his liberty except through a procedure that is reasonable, fair and just as such deprivation would amount to a direct violation of the fundamental right as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Be that as it may, curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, during the judicial process, cannot be avoided. However, if the period of deprivation pending trial becomes excessively long, the fairness as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would come into play.