https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127291 Pending prosecution under the Bihar Sales Tax Act was not barred by double jeopardy because the earlier acquittal related to different offences. The court treated the sales tax charge under Section 26(1)(a) as a continuing default of non-registration, not an act confined to the date of inspection, and held that the prior prosecution under Section 353 IPC and the later sales tax prosecution were distinct offences. Article 20(2) and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act apply only to prosecution and punishment for the same offence, and Section 403(4) CrPC allowed the later trial because the earlier Magistrate lacked competence to try the sales tax offence. en-us Tue, 24 Nov 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Mar 2013 18:28:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127291 Pending prosecution under the Bihar Sales Tax Act was not barred by double jeopardy because the earlier acquittal related to different offences. The court treated the sales tax charge under Section 26(1)(a) as a continuing default of non-registration, not an act confined to the date of inspection, and held that the prior prosecution under Section 353 IPC and the later sales tax prosecution were distinct offences. Article 20(2) and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act apply only to prosecution and punishment for the same offence, and Section 403(4) CrPC allowed the later trial because the earlier Magistrate lacked competence to try the sales tax offence. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 24 Nov 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127291