https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128142 Sanction under section 24(2) was a condition precedent to cognizance, and it had to show that the sanctioning authority was placed in possession of the facts constituting the alleged offence and applied its mind to them. The sanction here was invalid because it did not specify the relevant business period or the facts said to constitute the offence, and there was no other evidence that the Sales Tax Commissioner had those facts before him. Without a valid sanction, cognizance could not lawfully be taken and the criminal court lacked jurisdiction to try the offence; the conviction was therefore quashed and the sentences set aside. en-us Fri, 26 Feb 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:37:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128142 Sanction under section 24(2) was a condition precedent to cognizance, and it had to show that the sanctioning authority was placed in possession of the facts constituting the alleged offence and applied its mind to them. The sanction here was invalid because it did not specify the relevant business period or the facts said to constitute the offence, and there was no other evidence that the Sales Tax Commissioner had those facts before him. Without a valid sanction, cognizance could not lawfully be taken and the criminal court lacked jurisdiction to try the offence; the conviction was therefore quashed and the sentences set aside. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 26 Feb 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128142