https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465404 A subsequent sanction for prosecution could not stand where the same competent authority had already refused sanction on the same material. The earlier refusal recorded that the allegations did not disclose conspiracy and amounted only to gross procedural lapses, while the later sanction gave no fresh reasons and merely stated that the record had been reconsidered. In the absence of fresh material, the authority could not validly change its view on identical facts, and the defect was apparent from the sanction order itself. The High Court therefore held the later sanction invalid and quashed the criminal proceedings. en-us Tue, 29 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Dec 2025 22:28:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465404 A subsequent sanction for prosecution could not stand where the same competent authority had already refused sanction on the same material. The earlier refusal recorded that the allegations did not disclose conspiracy and amounted only to gross procedural lapses, while the later sanction gave no fresh reasons and merely stated that the record had been reconsidered. In the absence of fresh material, the authority could not validly change its view on identical facts, and the defect was apparent from the sanction order itself. The High Court therefore held the later sanction invalid and quashed the criminal proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 29 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465404