GST - Arresting Powers

The incongruity, as pointed out, appears to be due to partial reading of the provisions of Section 69 and section 132 of the CGST Act. Section 69(1) says: Where the Commissioner has reasons to believe that a person has committed any offence specified in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 132 which is punishable under clause (i) or (ii) of sub-section (1), or sub-section (2) of the said section, he may, by order, authorise any officer of central tax to arrest such person.
There are three situations where arrest can be authorised by the Commissioner out of which only first that is when a person has committed any offence specified in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 132 which is punishable under clause (i) which says that in cases where the amount of tax evaded or the amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds five hundred lakh rupees, the offender will be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine. The combined reading of sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 132 makes it clear that this is the only situation covered under cognizable and non-bailable offences as all offences except this are non-cognizable and bailable.
Out of the other two offences where arrest can be made, the first covers offence specified in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 132 which is punishable under clause (ii) which says that in cases where the amount of tax evaded or the amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds two hundred lakh rupees but does not exceed five hundred lakh rupees, person will be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine; the second situation is covered under sub-section (2) of Section 132 where punishment for repeater of offence or habitual offender is provided. Both these situations are non-cognizable and bailable where the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner is empowered to grant bail in such cases.
No arrest can be made in respect of offences mentioned in clause (e) to (l) of sub-section (1) of section 132 or if the amount of evasion is upto two hundred lakh rupees even in case of offences mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) ibid, except in case of repetition of offences punishable under section 132, as this situation is covered under sub-section (2)of section 132 and is mentioned in Section 69(1).
Thus section 69(1) empowers the Commissioner to authorises a central tax officer to arrest a person where he (the Commissioner) has reason to believe that the person has committed offence which is either cognisable and non-bailable or non-cognisable and bailable. Hence there appears to be no incongruity in the provisions of section 69 and section 132 as regards to arrest in the non-cognizable and bailable offences.

(The views expressed here are strictly personal)
- Baljit Singh Khara

NACIN NACIN 04/06/2019