https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405104 An FIR alleging that a public servant accepted bribe money to reduce a company's tax liability was held, on the face of the allegations, to disclose a cognizable offence and not liable to quashing at the threshold. Statutory protection under Sections 79 and 80 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was confined to bona fide acts done or purportedly done under the Act, and did not extend to bribery allegations. The later FIR was not treated as a second FIR because it concerned different offences with different ingredients, and neither double jeopardy nor issue estoppel applied. Protection under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 was also unavailable, as receipt of a bribe is outside official or judicial duty. en-us Mon, 08 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405104 An FIR alleging that a public servant accepted bribe money to reduce a company's tax liability was held, on the face of the allegations, to disclose a cognizable offence and not liable to quashing at the threshold. Statutory protection under Sections 79 and 80 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was confined to bona fide acts done or purportedly done under the Act, and did not extend to bribery allegations. The later FIR was not treated as a second FIR because it concerned different offences with different ingredients, and neither double jeopardy nor issue estoppel applied. Protection under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 was also unavailable, as receipt of a bribe is outside official or judicial duty. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 08 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405104