Sanction for prosecution and statutory bar under sales tax law require no pre-hearing, while penalty must first exist to bar prosecution.

Prosecution under the Bombay Sales Tax Act was described as barred under section 63(14) only where a penalty had already been imposed on the same facts; because no penalty had been imposed, the statutory bar did not apply. Sanction for prosecution was treated as an administrative act, so no pre-sanction hearing or show-cause notice was required, and the accused's defence could be fully raised in the criminal trial. The article also notes that an article 14 challenge based on differential treatment failed because the cited situations were not comparable and did not create a general rule for sanction proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether prosecution under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 was barred under section 63(14) where no penalty had been imposed on the same facts; (ii) Whether prior hearing was required before granting sanction for prosecution, and whether the absence of a show-cause notice before sanction offended article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether prosecution under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 was barred under section 63(14) where no penalty had been imposed on the same facts.

Analysis: The bar under section 63(14) operates only where a penalty has already been imposed by the Commissioner in respect of the same facts. The record showed that no penalty had been imposed on the petitioner. The criminal complaint had already been lodged before the penalty show-cause notice was issued, and the penalty proceedings were not pursued further. On that basis, the statutory bar did not arise.

Conclusion: The prosecution was not barred under section 63(14); this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether prior hearing was required before granting sanction for prosecution, and whether the absence of a show-cause notice before sanction offended article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Grant of sanction for prosecution was treated as an administrative act. The accused would receive a full opportunity to defend himself in the criminal trial after cognizance was taken. The sanctioning authority was not deciding any lis or determining rights, so the principles of natural justice were not imported into the sanction stage. The discrimination argument under article 14 also failed because the cases relied upon were shown to be different, and the practice of issuing notices for compounding or other discretionary purposes did not create a universal rule applicable to sanction for prosecution.

Conclusion: No prior hearing was required before sanction, and the article 14 challenge failed; this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on both the statutory bar and natural justice grounds, and the challenge to the sanction and prosecution was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution is barred under section 63(14) only when a penalty has already been imposed on the same facts, and sanction for prosecution is an administrative act that does not, by itself, require a pre-sancion hearing under natural justice principles.

---