Vishal Pandey @ Pandey Vishal Kanhaiya vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Held
The Court held that while the transaction appeared to be commercial, the absence of an e-way bill and GST number for the goods allegedly sent by the petitioner's firm constituted the ingredients of a cognizable offense under Section 406 IPC. Therefore, the FIR could not be quashed. The Court dismissed the writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that the non-compliance with GST regulations, specifically the lack of an e-way bill and GST number for goods transported, can form the basis for a criminal complaint under Section 406 IPC, indicating a potential breach of trust in a commercial transaction. The petitioner was granted liberty to apply for bail or anticipatory bail.
Facts
The petitioner, Vishal Pandey, sought to quash a First Information Report (FIR) dated October 2, 2020, registered as Case Crime No. 335 of 2020, under Sections 406, 420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Kotwali Kalpi, District Jalaun. The petitioner argued that the FIR did not disclose any offense under Sections 406 or 420 IPC. The State contended that while the transaction appeared commercial, the firm connected to the petitioner allegedly sent goods to the first informant without generating an e-way bill or possessing a GST number, which, according to the court, constituted ingredients of a cognizable offense under Section 406 IPC.
Key Issues
1. Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a cognizable offense under Section 406 IPC, thereby warranting the quashing of the FIR? (Question of law) Contentions: Petitioner: The bare reading of the FIR does not make out a case under Section 406 IPC or Section 420 IPC. Respondent (State): The transaction, though commercial, involved the alleged sending of goods by the petitioner's firm without a valid e-way bill or GST number, which constitutes the ingredients of a cognizable offense under Section 406 IPC.
Sections Cited
Section 406, Section 420, Section 506
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3911 of 2022 Petitioner :- Vishal Pandey @ Pandey Vishal Kanhaiya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mohammad Sadab Khan Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A for the State.
The petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 02.10.2020 giving rise to Case Crime NO.335 of 2020, under section 406, 420, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Kalpi, District Jalaun.
Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that from a bare reading of the FIR, no case under section 406 IPC or section 420 IPC is made out.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, we find it is true that the transaction between the parties appears to be a commercial transaction.
However, the relevant allegation is that the firm to which the petitioner is connected, is alleged to have sent goods to the first informant. However no e-way bill has been generated nor there is GST no. of the firm. We find that these allegations constitute the ingredients
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.