Gold-control licensing rules do not invalidate a partnership where the licence stands in one partner's name.

A firm is within the wide definition of "dealer" under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and the licensing provisions in sections 27 and 52 read with rule 7 do not make the partnership unlawful merely because the gold-control licence stands in the name of one partner. The fact that business was carried on through one partner did not amount to a transfer of licence or other prohibited arrangement. On that basis, withdrawal of the firm's registration was unjustified, and the firm was entitled to retain its registration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee-firm's registration could be withdrawn on the ground that the gold-control licence stood in the name of only one partner and the firm thereby contravened the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

Analysis: The definition of "dealer" in section 2(h) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 is wide enough to include a firm, and also contemplates business being carried on otherwise than directly. Sections 27 and 52 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and rule 7 of the Gold Control (Forms, Fees and Misc. Matters) Rules, 1968 must be read along with that definition. On that footing, the mere fact that the licence was in the name of one partner did not show any transfer of licence or illegality in the partnership arrangement. The firm's use of the licence through one partner did not amount to a prohibited transfer.

Conclusion: The withdrawal of registration was unjustified and the assessee was entitled to retain the registration.

---