https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253605 The court held that imposing penalties under section 45A in addition to penalties under section 17(5A) for the same offenses does not constitute double jeopardy. However, in this case, since the petitioner had already been penalized under section 17(5A), further penalties under section 45A were deemed excessive. The court emphasized that special provisions (section 17(5A) take precedence over general provisions (section 45A) and ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the penalties under section 45A and allowing the writ petition. en-us Mon, 21 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253605 The court held that imposing penalties under section 45A in addition to penalties under section 17(5A) for the same offenses does not constitute double jeopardy. However, in this case, since the petitioner had already been penalized under section 17(5A), further penalties under section 45A were deemed excessive. The court emphasized that special provisions (section 17(5A) take precedence over general provisions (section 45A) and ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the penalties under section 45A and allowing the writ petition. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 21 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253605