Court validates prosecution sanction under Sales Tax Act, denies discrimination claim, upholding departmental discretion.

The Court upheld the validity of the sanction for prosecution under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, finding that the bar under section 63(14) did not apply. It held that there was no violation of principles of natural justice in granting the sanction without hearing the accused beforehand. The Court also rejected the claim of discrimination in issuing show cause notices, affirming the department's discretion to prosecute based on the seriousness of the allegations and specific circumstances. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Sanction for criminal prosecution under Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, Principles of natural justice in granting sanction, Bar on prosecution under section 63(14) of Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, Discrimination in issuing show cause notice for sanction.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged orders by Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing preliminary objections. Criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, after obtaining sanction from the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. The petitioner argued that the prosecution was barred under section 63(14) of the Act since no penalty was imposed before the criminal proceedings. The petitioner contended that the sanction granted without hearing him violated principles of natural justice. The Public Prosecutor argued that granting sanction is an administrative act and does not require hearing the accused beforehand. The Court noted that no penalty was imposed on the petitioner, and the bar under section 63(14) did not apply. The Court also rejected the argument that the sanctioning authority must hear the accused before granting sanction, citing precedents that granting sanction is an administrative act, not a judicial one.

The Court further discussed the contention of discrimination in issuing show cause notices for sanction. The petitioner alleged that not receiving a show cause notice before sanction amounted to discrimination. However, the Court found the explanation provided by the Sales Tax Officer reasonable. The Officer clarified that show cause notices issued in other cases were for different purposes and not under section 67 of the Act. The Commissioner decided to prosecute the petitioner due to serious allegations, and the decision was based on the circumstances of the case. The Court upheld the department's discretion in issuing show cause notices and launching prosecution based on the seriousness of the allegations.

In conclusion, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that the sanction for prosecution was valid, the bar under section 63(14) did not apply, and there was no violation of principles of natural justice. The Court also rejected the claim of discrimination in issuing show cause notices, upholding the department's decision to prosecute the petitioner based on the seriousness of the allegations and the specific circumstances of the case.

---