Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, under Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, the notice required to initiate confiscation proceedings was duly given within six months of seizure when it was merely despatched but not shown to have been received or tendered within that period, and whether the seized gold was therefore liable to be returned.
Analysis: Section 79 makes the giving of written notice within six months a mandatory condition for confiscation or penalty proceedings, and the second proviso confers a right to return of the seized goods if no such notice is given within that period or within duly extended time. On the reasoning adopted from the analogous provisions of the Customs Act, mere despatch of notice does not complete the act of giving notice; the notice must reach the person concerned or be tendered to him. If that is not done within six months, a vested civil right to restoration of the seized goods accrues. On the facts, no notice was shown to have reached the petitioner or been tendered to him within the prescribed period.
Conclusion: The notice was not validly given within six months, the petitioner acquired a right to return of the seized articles, and the confiscation, appellate, and revisional orders were quashed with a direction to return the seized goods.