<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1958 (3) TMI 50 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127730</link>
    <description>A saving clause preserving &quot;liability incurred&quot; under a repealed sales tax law was read broadly to include criminal liability, so offences already committed remained punishable and prosecution remained maintainable. Sanction for prosecution given by the Additional Collector was upheld because sanction was procedural, the successor law preserved the offence, and the relevant appointment notification continued in force. The High Court&#039;s enhancement of sentence was sustained in view of the accused&#039;s false returns and duplicate accounts, but the imprisonment had to conform to the statute: rigorous imprisonment was impermissible where only simple imprisonment and fine were authorised.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2020 11:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164605" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (3) TMI 50 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127730</link>
      <description>A saving clause preserving &quot;liability incurred&quot; under a repealed sales tax law was read broadly to include criminal liability, so offences already committed remained punishable and prosecution remained maintainable. Sanction for prosecution given by the Additional Collector was upheld because sanction was procedural, the successor law preserved the offence, and the relevant appointment notification continued in force. The High Court&#039;s enhancement of sentence was sustained in view of the accused&#039;s false returns and duplicate accounts, but the imprisonment had to conform to the statute: rigorous imprisonment was impermissible where only simple imprisonment and fine were authorised.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127730</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>