Question 1

GST and Customs officers are legally considered police officers because they possess the power to arrest, search, and interrogate.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court reiterated that revenue officers are NOT police officers, even though the procedural safeguards of the BNSS/CrPC apply to the arrests they make.

Question 2

The Supreme Court struck down the power of tax authorities to make arrests for tax evasion.

Accepted Answer

The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the arrest provisions (such as Sections 69 and 70 of the GST Act) but instituted strict procedural safeguards to prevent their arbitrary misuse.

Question 3

Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's February 2025 judgment in the 'Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India' case:
1. The Court declared that GST and Customs officers must be classified as 'police officers' to enforce BNSS safeguards.
2. The judgment explicitly allowed individuals to seek anticipatory bail for offences under the GST Act even in the absence of a formal FIR.
3. The Supreme Court struck down Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for being violative of Article 21.

Accepted Answer

(a) Only one — Statement 1 is incorrect because the Court explicitly maintained that revenue officers are NOT police officers, despite CrPC/BNSS safeguards applying to them. Statement 2 is correct, as the Court confirmed the applicability of anticipatory bail without a formal FIR. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Court upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 69 and 70 of the GST Act, rather than striking them down.

Question 4

Match the following legal provisions/cases discussed in the context of the GST/Customs arrest judgment (List I) with their subject matter (List II):
List I:
A. Om Prakash v. Union of India (2011)
B. Section 132(5) of the CGST Act
C. Section 41D of CrPC
D. Article 246A of the Constitution
List II:
1. Special provision regarding goods and services tax
2. Right of arrested person to meet an advocate during interrogation
3. Classified earlier Customs/Excise offences as non-cognizable and bailable
4. Conditions under which GST offences become cognizable and non-bailable

Accepted Answer

(a) A-3, B-4, C-2, D-1 — 'Om Prakash v. Union of India' is the historical 2011 case that made Customs offences bailable (A-3). Section 132(5) of the CGST Act makes tax evasion above Rs 500 lakh a cognizable and non-bailable offence (B-4). Section 41D of CrPC gives the arrested person the right to meet a lawyer during interrogation (C-2). Article 246A gives Parliament and State Legislatures the power to make laws on GST, which the SC held includes incidental powers like arrest (D-1).

Question 5

Assertion (A): The Supreme Court rejected the argument that Parliament lacked legislative competence to enact penal provisions like arrests under the GST Acts.
Reason (R): The Court held that the power to arrest and prosecute is ancillary and incidental to the power to levy and collect Goods and Services Tax under Article 246A of the Constitution.

Accepted Answer

(a) Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A — Both statements are true. The petitioners argued that Article 246A only allowed the levying of taxes, not creating criminal offences. The Supreme Court rejected this (Assertion) precisely because it interpreted the legislative entries broadly, concluding that enforcing tax collection through penal provisions like arrest is an ancillary power intrinsically linked to the main power of taxation under Article 246A (Reason).

SC Upholds CrPC Safeguards in Tax Arrests

SC Intervenes in Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls