https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9069 A prior writ decision between the same parties was treated as binding on the legal questions already decided, so the petitioner could not reopen them in later petitions under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court also held that the complaints and cognizance were not vitiated: the Income-tax Officer's complaint at the Commissioner's instance satisfied section 279(1) of the Income-tax Act, the proceedings were not barred by section 173(4) or section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the prosecution under the Indian Penal Code remained maintainable. Penalty proceedings under the Income-tax Act were held distinct from criminal prosecution, so simultaneous proceedings did not offend double jeopardy under Article 20(2). en-us Mon, 27 Aug 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9069 A prior writ decision between the same parties was treated as binding on the legal questions already decided, so the petitioner could not reopen them in later petitions under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court also held that the complaints and cognizance were not vitiated: the Income-tax Officer's complaint at the Commissioner's instance satisfied section 279(1) of the Income-tax Act, the proceedings were not barred by section 173(4) or section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the prosecution under the Indian Penal Code remained maintainable. Penalty proceedings under the Income-tax Act were held distinct from criminal prosecution, so simultaneous proceedings did not offend double jeopardy under Article 20(2). Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 27 Aug 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9069