These writ applications raise common issues and as such they are being been disposed off by a common judgment. The writ applications mount a common challenge to the various First Information Reports instituted against the various petitioners by the Taxing Authority for serious violation of the provisions of Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “VAT Act”) to be more precise for violation of Section 56(4) of the VAT Act read with various provisions of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).

2. The common sliver that runs through the various applications under consideration is that the petitioners are being accused of violation of Section 56(4) of the VAT Act for reason that they were found to be either lacking in possession of Form D-IX ( forms used for transportation of goods into the State) or Form X-VII (forms used for movement of goods through the State to another State) or they were found to be in possession of Form D-IX or D-VII which were deficient in details or were alleged to have been forged or interpolated with details and it was alleged that goods accompanying the said Forms D-IX were being transported with intention to cheat the State Government of the revenue that would have accrued to it on account of proper documentation of the goods accompanying Form D-IX.

3. The main thrust of the argument of the petitioners revolve around the jurisdiction of the Taxing Authority to institute a First Information Report. The argument of the petitioners raise the following issues for consideration of the Court:

(a) Whether the State Police has the jurisdiction to entertain, institute and investigate offences under the VAT Act especially in view of Section 86(2)(a) read with Section 83 of the VAT Act ?

(b) Whether the VAT Act being the special Act, having made provisions for institution of offences under the VAT Act, would override and divest the police authority to institute and investigate cases under the IPC - the latin maxim “generalia specialibus non-derogant”, which means that when there is a conflict between a general and a special provision, the latter shall prevail - has been resorted to ?

(c) Whether the institution and investigation by the police can be termed as an abuse of the judicial process ?

4. It is the contention of the petitioners that section 83 of the VAT Act invests the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to authorize any person subordinate to himself to investigate any offence punishable under the VAT Act and the person so authorized shall investigate the said offence and shall have the power of an Officer-in-Charge of a Police Station, for investigation of cognizable offence, as conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”). It is further contended by the petitioners that the section 86 of the VAT Act invests the State Government with powers to constitute a Bureau of Investigation and the said Bureau of Investigation, by an order of the State Government, can be vested with the power of an Officer-in-Charge of a Police Station as is provided under the CrPC.

5. The petitioners have drawn attention of the court to provisions of Section 86 (2) (b) of the VAT Act which provides that the Commissioner may, by a Gazetted Order authorize the officer of the Bureau of Investigation to exercise power of an authority appointed under Section 10 of the VAT Act. It is the thrust of the argument of the petitioners that in view of the specific provision conferring the power on the Bureau of Investigation to conduct investigation with regard to the offences punishable under the VAT Act, the Police Officer/ Officer-in- Charge of a Police Station stands divested of the authority to institute and investigate a First Information Report under Section 154 of the CrPC read with the power conferred under Chapter XII of the CrPC.

6. It is next contended by the petitioners that VAT Act being special Act would override the general Act- generalia specialibus non