TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a penalty could be imposed under Section 6(2) of the Gold Control Act, 1968 in the absence of a specific charge and averments in the show cause notice. (ii) Whether the materials on record established that the appellant was carrying on business as a dealer in gold ornaments so as to attract Section 27(1) of the Gold Control Act, 1968.
Issue (i): Whether a penalty could be imposed under Section 6(2) of the Gold Control Act, 1968 in the absence of a specific charge and averments in the show cause notice.
Analysis: The proceedings were penal in nature, and the appellant had to be called upon to meet the specific case against him. Where the show cause notice did not allege contravention under Section 6(2) or non-accountal as a pawn broker, that charge could not be introduced later to sustain punishment. A person cannot be visited with penalty on a ground not put to notice.
Conclusion: The charge under Section 6(2) could not be sustained against the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the materials on record established that the appellant was carrying on business as a dealer in gold ornaments so as to attract Section 27(1) of the Gold Control Act, 1968.
Analysis: Section 27(1) applies only where a person commences or carries on business as a dealer without a valid licence. Mere possession of unaccounted gold ornaments by a pawn broker does not by itself prove that he is a dealer in gold. The record disclosed suspicion arising from non-accountal and the manner in which the ornaments were kept, but suspicion cannot replace proof in a penal proceeding. There was no acceptable material showing that the appellant was actually carrying on the business of making, buying, selling, supplying, distributing, melting, processing, or converting gold.
Conclusion: The charge under Section 27(1) was not proved.
Final Conclusion: The appellant was exonerated of the alleged contravention, the confiscatory order and penalty were set aside, and the appeal succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere possession of unaccounted gold ornaments by a pawn broker does not establish that he is carrying on business as a dealer in gold, and a penal demand cannot be sustained on a ground not specifically alleged in the show cause notice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
