Distinct tax offences and unresolved factual issues can defeat double jeopardy objections and require fresh reconsideration.

A subsequent prosecution under the Central Sales Tax Act was treated as distinct where the later charge under section 10(d) depended on failure to use goods for the declared purpose after purchase, while the earlier charge under section 10(b) rested on false representation at the time of purchase. On that basis, the bar under section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 20(2) was rejected because the essential facts were not the same. The Court also noted unresolved questions on the certificate wording, the use of raw films in making motion pictures, and the effect of later conduct, and therefore directed fresh disposal rather than final penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the subsequent proceeding under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for an offence under section 10(d) was barred by the earlier proceeding under section 10(b) by reason of section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the matter could be finally concluded on the existing record, or whether the orders required quashing and fresh disposal.

Issue (i): whether the subsequent proceeding under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for an offence under section 10(d) was barred by the earlier proceeding under section 10(b) by reason of section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The two provisions were treated as relating to different offences. A charge under section 10(b) rests on a false representation at the time of purchase, while section 10(d) concerns failure, after purchase for the specified purposes, to use the goods for such purpose. The facts constituting the earlier offence were therefore not the same as those constituting the later offence, and the mere overlap of some facts did not attract the statutory or constitutional bar.

Conclusion: The plea of bar under section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the matter could be finally concluded on the existing record, or whether the orders required quashing and fresh disposal.

Analysis: The Court found that several substantial questions still required consideration, including the effect of the wording in the registration certificate and charge, whether the use of raw films in making motion pictures could amount to processing of goods for sale, and whether any subsequent sale or change of intention affected liability. In the absence of findings on these matters, it was not appropriate to impose penalty at that stage.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were quashed and the matter was directed to be freshly disposed of in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded only on the limited ground that the matter required reconsideration, while the objection based on previous prosecution failed on merits; the penalty proceedings were sent back for fresh decision.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent prosecution is not barred where the later charge constitutes a distinct offence requiring different essential facts, and liability under the sales tax penalty provision cannot be imposed without deciding the unresolved factual and legal questions bearing on use of the goods for the specified purpose.

---