https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5121 Section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was treated as operating alongside section 177 of the Indian Penal Code, because the two provisions occupied different fields and were not irreconcilably inconsistent; prosecution under both remained legally maintainable, though double punishment was barred. Repeal of the 1922 Act did not extinguish liability or pending prosecutions, since section 297 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 did not exclude the saving effect of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. A complaint need not be personally filed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner if it was taken on his authority, and the statutory prosecution scheme was held not to offend article 14 because discretion was structured by statutory safeguards. en-us Thu, 12 Dec 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5121 Section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was treated as operating alongside section 177 of the Indian Penal Code, because the two provisions occupied different fields and were not irreconcilably inconsistent; prosecution under both remained legally maintainable, though double punishment was barred. Repeal of the 1922 Act did not extinguish liability or pending prosecutions, since section 297 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 did not exclude the saving effect of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. A complaint need not be personally filed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner if it was taken on his authority, and the statutory prosecution scheme was held not to offend article 14 because discretion was structured by statutory safeguards. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 12 Dec 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5121