https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352579 Article 20(2) does not bar criminal prosecution merely because tax proceedings arose from the same factual transaction. The double jeopardy protection applies only where the former and later offences are the same in law, meaning their ingredients are identical. Here, the Bihar VAT proceedings concerned tax evasion and related penalties, while the criminal case alleged cheating and forgery based on false TIN particulars. As the two proceedings operated in different fields and involved distinct legal ingredients, the Patna HC held that the prosecution was maintainable and the challenge to cognizance failed. en-us Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Dec 2017 08:27:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352579 Article 20(2) does not bar criminal prosecution merely because tax proceedings arose from the same factual transaction. The double jeopardy protection applies only where the former and later offences are the same in law, meaning their ingredients are identical. Here, the Bihar VAT proceedings concerned tax evasion and related penalties, while the criminal case alleged cheating and forgery based on false TIN particulars. As the two proceedings operated in different fields and involved distinct legal ingredients, the Patna HC held that the prosecution was maintainable and the challenge to cognizance failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352579