TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the criminal prosecution under the Indian Penal Code was barred by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India on the ground that proceedings had already been initiated under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for the same set of facts.
Analysis: The relevant BVAT provisions relied upon by the petitioner dealt with penalty for concealment or failure to disclose correct particulars and with interception, detention and search of goods carriers. They did not create a criminal bar against prosecution for forgery or cheating. The protection against double jeopardy applies only where the former and later offences are the same in law, meaning that their ingredients are identical. Here, the tax proceedings and the criminal prosecution operated in different fields: the BVAT proceedings addressed tax evasion and related penalties, while the FIR and cognizance concerned cheating and forgery by use of false TIN particulars. The same facts may give rise to liability under two different laws if the ingredients of the offences are distinct.
Conclusion: Article 20(2) did not bar the criminal prosecution, and the challenge to the cognizance order failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Double jeopardy is attracted only when the two proceedings concern the same offence, as determined by identity of ingredients, and not merely because they arise from the same factual transaction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
