IJAZ-UL-AHSAN, J. - Report has been filed in which the department claims that the petitioners are invoked in evasion of tax and/or in tax fraud. The main argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents have no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice or lodge an FIR. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent No. 5 has the requisite powers and the necessary notification has also been issued by the competent authority.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the judgment rendered in W.P. No. 17250/2010, by this Court, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. I however direct the petitioners to appear before respondent No. 5, produce all relevant data, information and documentation and raise all objections including objections relating to jurisdiction before him.
Respondent No. 5 shall hear the petitioners and decide all objections including the objection relating to jurisdiction through a reasoned order in accordance with the provisions of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The aforesaid shall be done within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioners shall in the first instance appear before Respondent No. 3 on 5.5.2011 at 11,00 a.m. Whereafter the shall fix further dates of bearing and provide list of documents that he requires from the petitioners. It is further orders that subject to furnishing of a bank guarantee issued by a schedules bank equivalent to the entire amount claimed by the respondent to the satisfaction of respondent No. 3, the petitioners shall not be arrested till the matter is finally decided by him.
3. This petition is disposed of with the above direction.