Judgment M.D. Shah, J.—This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of Criminal Case No. 3930 of 2010 and the proceedings thereunder. 2. The petitioner, the proprietor of M/s Gee Tee India, Ahmedabad, which is engaged in the business of supplying raw material, purchased 17000 and 16500 kg. of PVC resin powder from M/s Signet Overseas Ltd., Mumbai on 7-7-2010 which were to be transported to the petitioner through two different trucks. The petitioner had paid Central Sales Tax at 2% of both the purchase values which is duly included in the bills. These two trucks were intercepted by the police at Vapi on 8-7-2010 and an offence was registered alleging that owners of truck in collusion with the petitioner prepared false bills to evade sales tax on the purchase o resin. They were arrested on 20-11-2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 114 of IPC. On coming to know of this incident, the petitioner through his advocate submitted a representation on 18-12-2010 to Police Inspector, Vapi Udhyognagar Police Station pointing out that purchase of two truck loads of resin was a regular purchase on payment of requisite sales tax. It was also pointed out that the competent authority to take cognizance of sales tax evasion was Sales Tax Authority. A charge sheet in that regard was submitted by the police showing the petitioner as absconding accused and case has been numbered as Criminal Case No. 3930 of 2010. His application for anticipatory bail was rejected. Present petition is filed for quashing of said criminal case. 3. Heard Learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mukul Sinha for the petitioner and learned APP, Ms. C.M. Shah for the Respondent No. 1-State. 4. It is submitted by Learned Counsel, Mr. Sinha, that cognizance of the present case by the Gujarat police is barred by the statutory provision of Section 87 read with Section 88 of Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (‘the VAT Act’ for short) and it is only the competent authority which has the power to take cognizance. It is further submitted that as there is a specific bar from initiating criminal proceedings in the present case, the criminal case in question is required to be quashed. It is further submitted that as there is a specific bar from initiating criminal proceedings in the present case, the criminal case in question is required to be quashed. It is further submitted that the main allegation is of willful attempt to evade tax for the offence punishable under Section 85(1)(g) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act and so, other alleged offences punishable under Section 468, 471 and 114 of IPC cannot be separated from this offence and, therefore, procedure should be required to be followed under the provisions of the VAT Act and therefore also, the complaint is required to be quashed. It is further submitted that no allegation is made against the petitioner in the entire papers of charge sheet that he has prepared any false documents or committed forgery and the petitioner immediately through his advocate provided all the documents in reference to the tax paid by the petitioner with the Government of Maharashtra which clearly shows that present petitioner is not involved in the crime and if any offence of preparation and use of of so-called false documents is made out, it is by the transporters and hence, the petitioner cannot even remotely be connected with the offence in question. It is therefore prayed that the complaint is required to be quashed. He has relied on the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 2010 (1) G.L.H. 184. 5. Learned APP, Ms. C.M. Shah, on the other hand, taking this Court through Section 85(1)(g) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, has submitted that as the petitioner has attempted to evade tax leviable under the Act, he shall be liable for criminal prosecution. She has also submitted that the anticipatory bail application preferred by the petitioner was rejected. She has also submitted that investigation is at crucial stage and it is prima facie established from the police papers that there is a huge racket of evasion of tax going on by creating false and forged documents and there is sufficient prima facie materials available against the present petitioner and, therefore, at this juncture, Court should not use it discretion under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and hence, it is requested that this petition be dismissed. 6. 6. This Court has gone through the complaint in question and the papers of charge sheet and ingredients of the complaint. It is an admitted fact that investigation is at crucial stage. Till date, accused is not available for investigation and though warrant under Section 70 of the Cr.P.C. is issued, the petitioner is shown as absconding in the charge sheet. Merely by placing documents with the police through advocate, it could not be said that the petitioner is ready to give co-operation in the investigation. 7. The investigation is at crucial stage and it is prima facie found that bogus documents were created and allegations of committing serious offences were also levelled. Therefore, there is no substance in the submission of Mr. Sinha that the entire criminal proceedings have been initiated on the basis of breach of Section 85(1)(g) of VAT Act and, therefore, proceedings must be proceeded with according to VAT Act. The point as to whether offence of evasion of tax under VAT Act or under the IPC cannot be separated can only be decided at the end of trial. As the complaint prima facie constitutes offence against the petitioner, the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of the judgment relied on by his Learned Advocate. 8. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 439 and Central Bureau of Investigation vs. A. Ravishankar Prasad and others reported in (2009) 6 SCC page 351 that Court can quash the charge sheet if allegations in FIR or complaint do not disclose commission of offence and when prima facie ingredients of the offence is made out in the charge-sheet, criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. In view of the above, this petition is required to be dismissed. 9. This petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. 10. The observations made by this Court in this judgment being made for the purpose of deciding this petition shall not prejudice the parties in trial. P P P P P