No Police officer has been granted authority to check invoices and account goods during its movement.

Case Details:

Issue- In the above case, the petitioner has challenged the Impugned FIR made against the petitioner under Section 420, 188 of the Indian Penal Code & Section 63 of the Copyright Act. The only allegation in the impugned first information report is that on being asked by the informant Sub Inspector, the petitioner could not show valid papers relating to transportation of betel-nuts and tobacco and for that reason the impugned first information report has been registered under sections 420/188 IPC and section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Sections 188, 415 and 420 I.P.C.

Held- It was held that 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. Therefore, 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. However, the Petitioner has filed copy of tax invoices of Divya Chemicals, M/s Sijariya Traders and D.C. Trading Company as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. If these tax invoices suffer from any irregularity or infirmity, it is the tax authority under GST Act to look into and take action in accordance with law, including seizure of the goods under section 129 of the U.P. GST/CGST Act. therefore, this court required a counter affidavit be filed by the respondents by means of a personal affidavit of Superintendent of Police, Jalaun within three days. In his counter affidavit, the respondents shall also show cause that in the event the impugned first information report, lodged by the informant-respondent no. 3 (Sub Inspector), is found to be malicious and abuse of power, then why exemplary cost may not be imposed upon respondent no. 3, to be recovered from his personal assets. If the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun finds that wrong has been committed by the Sub Inspector (respondent no. 3), then before filing his affidavit, he may take appropriate action in accordance with law. the petitioner shall not be arrested pursuant to the impugned first information report.