AB 944/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MUSAHARY Heard Mr. G. Baishya, learned counsel for the petitioners and also Mr. K. Munir , learned Additional P.P., Assam. This application has been filed u/s 438 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, for granting pre-a rrest bail in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 712/2011 registered under Sec tions 420/468/471 IPC. Mr. Baisya, learned counsel submits that the FIR aforesaid, as lodged by the Ass istant Commissioner, Central VAT Audit Cell attached to the Commissioner of Taxe s, Dispur, Guwahati with the Officer-In Charge, Dispur Police Station, is unwarr anted inasmuch as, the alleged offence relates to offences and penalties prescri bed under Chapter X of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, under which procedur es have been laid down. As per provisions u/s 85(1) (n) (r) (Zg) of the Act pe nalties have been provided for such offences. He further submits that there are provisions under Section 43 of the said Act in respect of payment and recovery o f tax, penalty and interest ; providing also for recovery of tax, penalty and in terest from the dealer in the event of his failure to make payment of tax. But i n the present case, without taking recourse to the procedures laid down in the s aid Act, the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes has filed the FIR on the basis of w hich no action against the petitioners could be taken ; more so, when an appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, is still pending for disposal. Mr. Munir, learned Addl. P.P. has produced the case diary as called for. On the basis of the case diary, he submits that the investigation is still in progress and in the meantime, statements of some of the witnesses have been recorded. Som e important documents have also been seized. Materials are found in the case dia ry prima facie supporting the allegations of false statements and forgery which are incriminating in nature, against the accused petitioners and it will go aga inst the interest of investigation, if the present accused petitioners are allow ed to go on bail. In view of the above, I reject this application for pre-arrest bail, at this sta ge.