TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the respondent bank was bound to issue gold bonds merely on the petitioners' application under the Gold Bonds Scheme without tender of the gold; (ii) Whether the writ petition challenging the Customs authorities' show cause notice was premature.
Issue (i): Whether the respondent bank was bound to issue gold bonds merely on the petitioners' application under the Gold Bonds Scheme without tender of the gold.
Analysis: The scheme did not operate as an automatic conversion of gold into bonds on filing of an application. The process required compliance with the prescribed steps, including tender of the gold, before bonds could be issued. On the facts, the gold remained in the custody of the Income-tax authorities until its release and was not available for tender when the application was made. In that situation, no duty arose on the bank to issue bonds merely because an application had been submitted.
Conclusion: The bank was not under an obligation to issue gold bonds to the petitioners on the mere application.
Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition challenging the Customs authorities' show cause notice was premature.
Analysis: The notice only required the petitioners to explain why the gold should not be confiscated. The petitioners could raise all available objections before the Customs authorities and, if aggrieved by any final order, pursue the appropriate legal remedy thereafter. At the notice stage, no cause for interference was made out.
Conclusion: The challenge to the show cause notice was premature.
Final Conclusion: The petition failed because the bank had no immediate duty to issue bonds on the facts presented, and the challenge to the customs notice was not maintainable at that stage.
Ratio Decidendi: A gold bonds scheme requiring tender of gold does not compel issuance of bonds on application alone, and a writ against a mere show cause notice is premature when an adequate opportunity to respond and contest confiscation remains available.
TaxTMI 
