https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2977 Prosecution for offences under Sections 276-B and 278-B of the Income-tax Act was not barred by limitation under Section 468 CrPC because the prescribed punishment extends beyond the limitation periods covered by that provision, so delay in filing the complaint did not by itself justify discharge. A prior notice or pre-launch hearing was also not required, as no provision in the Act mandates such notice before criminal prosecution and the compounding framework does not confer a right to insist on it. The discharge order was therefore unsustainable and was set aside for further proceedings in accordance with law. en-us Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2977 Prosecution for offences under Sections 276-B and 278-B of the Income-tax Act was not barred by limitation under Section 468 CrPC because the prescribed punishment extends beyond the limitation periods covered by that provision, so delay in filing the complaint did not by itself justify discharge. A prior notice or pre-launch hearing was also not required, as no provision in the Act mandates such notice before criminal prosecution and the compounding framework does not confer a right to insist on it. The discharge order was therefore unsustainable and was set aside for further proceedings in accordance with law. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2977