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

Case Title: Vishal Gupta v. State of U.P.

Court: High Court of Allahabad

Petition Number: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6295 of 2021

Date of Judgement: 13 August 2021

Category of Dispute: Power of Police under GST law, Malicious Prosecution

Relevant Sections: Sections 420, 188 IPC; Section 63 of Copyright Act, 1957; Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017

Facts of the Case

1. The petitioner, Vishal Gupta, was intercepted by police and an FIR dated 22-02-2021 was registered under Sections 420, 188 IPC and Section 63 of the Copyright Act at Police Station Nandi Gaon, District Jalaun. [Para 4–5]
2. The FIR alleged that petitioner was transporting eight bundles of betel-nuts and tobacco without producing valid documents on demand by Sub-Inspector Kedar Singh. [Para 6]
3. The petitioner contended that the goods were accompanied by valid tax invoices and that the police had no authority to check GST compliance. [Para 10–12]

Questions in Consideration

1. Whether the ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 188 IPC and Section 63 of Copyright Act were prima facie met? [Para 7–9]
2. Whether the police had the jurisdiction to initiate prosecution for GST invoice-related issues under criminal law? [Para 10]
3. Should the FIR be quashed due to apparent abuse of process by the Sub-Inspector? [Para 11, 13]

Observation of the Court

1. The Court held that none of the essential ingredients of “cheating” under Section 415 IPC were present; hence, Section 420 IPC was not applicable. [Para 7–8]
2. No public order was shown to be disobeyed, thus Section 188 IPC was also not attracted. [Para 8]
3. Section 63 of the Copyright Act was inapplicable as no element of copyright infringement was made out. [Para 9]
4. The Court strongly criticized the police for initiating criminal action where the proper jurisdiction lay with the GST authorities under CGST/UPGST Act. [Para 10]
5. The FIR was seen as a prima facie case of malicious intent and an abuse of power by the police. [Para 11–13]

Judgement of the Court

1. The Court directed that no coercive action, including arrest, shall be taken against the petitioner till the next date of hearing. [Para 15]
2. It ordered the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun, to file a personal affidavit within three days justifying the FIR and to explain why exemplary costs should not be imposed on Sub-Inspector Kedar Singh. [Para 13]
3. The case was listed for further hearing on 18-08-2021. [Para 14]

Between Fine Lines

• The Court questioned the overreach of police jurisdiction in what was essentially a GST compliance matter.
• It clarified that non-production of GST documents does not constitute cheating or violation of public order under IPC.
• FIRs for tax transport infractions must be dealt with by GST officers, not law enforcement.
• Abuse of power for harassment and obstruction to trade was strictly deprecated.
• Interim protection was granted against arrest pending further inquiry.

Summary of Referred Cases

Download Judgement