https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72714 A gold dealer's licence could not be refused merely because of a prior minor penalty for a trivial account irregularity or an alleged lack of educational suitability under the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. Rule 2 was treated as a directory factor for consideration, not an absolute disqualification, and the provisos to Rule 2(f) were read as relaxations of a restrictive scheme. The expression "shall have regard to" in Section 27(6)(a) of the Gold Control Act, 1968 was construed as requiring a broad, practical assessment. Minor past defaults and a petty penalty did not justify a finding that the applicant was unfit to act as a licensed dealer, so refusal of the licence was unsustainable. en-us Wed, 18 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72714 A gold dealer's licence could not be refused merely because of a prior minor penalty for a trivial account irregularity or an alleged lack of educational suitability under the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. Rule 2 was treated as a directory factor for consideration, not an absolute disqualification, and the provisos to Rule 2(f) were read as relaxations of a restrictive scheme. The expression "shall have regard to" in Section 27(6)(a) of the Gold Control Act, 1968 was construed as requiring a broad, practical assessment. Minor past defaults and a petty penalty did not justify a finding that the applicant was unfit to act as a licensed dealer, so refusal of the licence was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72714