https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127315 Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code barred a second trial for the same offence after prior acquittal, so the authorities could not re-open prosecution for non-payment of sales tax against the same person for the same year. Although Rule 19 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules made the dealer and partner jointly and severally liable, that procedural liability did not justify re-commencing proceedings in a form that would effectively subject the same accused to fresh punishment for the same default. The firm was the proper entity to have been proceeded against initially, and the earlier choice to prosecute the partner individually prevented the subsequent prosecution. The acquittal was therefore justified. en-us Thu, 01 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:38:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127315 Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code barred a second trial for the same offence after prior acquittal, so the authorities could not re-open prosecution for non-payment of sales tax against the same person for the same year. Although Rule 19 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules made the dealer and partner jointly and severally liable, that procedural liability did not justify re-commencing proceedings in a form that would effectively subject the same accused to fresh punishment for the same default. The firm was the proper entity to have been proceeded against initially, and the earlier choice to prosecute the partner individually prevented the subsequent prosecution. The acquittal was therefore justified. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 01 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127315