2022 (3) TMI 976 - HC - GST

Power of police authorities to check and inspect vehicles under GST - Transportation of betel-nuts and tobacco - valid papers not carried by petitioners - commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner - commanding the concerned respondents authority to not adopt any coercive measure against the petitioners - Sections 420, 188 IPC and Section 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957 - HELD THAT - The basic requirement of presence of two persons is also absent. Since the alleged act does not prima facie falls within the meaning of word cheating , consequently no case is made out under Section 420 I.P.C. on bare reading of the impugned first information report. Section 188 I.P.C. relates to disobedience of the order promulgated by a public servant. There is no allegation in the impugned first information report that the petitioner has disobeyed the order promulgated by a public servant. Thus, prima facie from bare reading of the impugned first information report no offence is made out under Section 420/188 I.P.C. - mere alleged failure to show the invoices to the informant Sub Inspector at the time of interception of the vehicle and without presence of any of the ingredients of an offence under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, the allegation of commission of offence under Section 63 is prima facie not made out. Prima facie the impugned first information report appears to be malicious and grave abuse of power by the informant Sub Inspector i.e. respondent no. 3. If the goods were not accompanied by proper documents for transportation, it is only the authorities under the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and I.C.S.T. Act, 2017, as the case may be, are empowered to check and take action in accordance with law, as provided under the relevant Acts and Rules. But the police has no authority to check invoices etc. and accounting the goods during transportation. The impugned first information report, on the very face of it, prima facie, reflects ill intention of the informant and obstruction in free flow of trade and commerce. Let a counter affidavit be filed by the respondents by means of a personal affidavit of Superintendent of Police, Jalaun within three days - Put up as a fresh case on 18.08.2021 at 10.00 a.m.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to the first information report (FIR) dated 20.02.2021 under sections 420, 188 I.P.C. & section 63 Copyright Act, filed by the petitioner. Request for quashing the FIR, not to arrest the petitioner, and not to adopt coercive measures against the petitioner.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in the supply of goods, was alleged to be carrying betel-nuts and tobacco without valid transportation papers. The FIR was registered under sections 420, 188 I.P.C. & section 63 of the Copyright Act. However, the FIR lacked essential elements of cheating under section 415 I.P.C. and did not reflect disobedience of a public servant's order under section 188 I.P.C. The absence of key elements rendered the allegations insufficient to establish offenses under the mentioned sections.

The FIR seemed to be a misuse of power by the informant, the Sub Inspector. The police lacked authority to check goods' documentation during transportation, a task designated to tax authorities under relevant tax laws. The FIR appeared to obstruct trade and commerce, reflecting ill intentions. The petitioner submitted tax invoices, and any irregularities should be addressed by tax authorities under the GST Act, including seizure of goods under Section 129 of the U.P. GST/CGST Act.

The court directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit within three days, explaining the validity of the FIR and potential abuse of power by the Sub Inspector. The Superintendent of Police was instructed to consider imposing exemplary costs on the Sub Inspector if found guilty. An interim measure was granted, preventing the petitioner's arrest until the next hearing date.

In conclusion, the court's analysis highlighted the lack of essential elements in the FIR to establish offenses under the relevant sections. It emphasized the need for proper legal procedures and the role of tax authorities in addressing irregularities related to goods transportation. The court sought clarification from the respondents and reserved the right to impose costs if misconduct by the Sub Inspector was proven.