<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1987 (3) TMI 244 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72949</link>
    <description>Gold purchased from the Reserve Bank ceased to be covered by the statutory exemption once it was sold and delivered, because the protection under the Gold (Control) Act extended only while the gold remained in Government or RBI possession or control. A licensed dealer could not shift its business premises merely by routing the sale through a commission agent, and the accounting restrictions continued to apply to the transaction. A higher penalty under Section 74 could not be imposed where the notice invoked only Section 75 and no prior notice or opportunity was given on the specific footing that the gold was liable to confiscation; the penalty was therefore confined to the lesser amount permissible under the notice. Writ relief was available notwithstanding an alternative remedy because the action offended natural justice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 May 2011 11:16:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111228" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (3) TMI 244 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72949</link>
      <description>Gold purchased from the Reserve Bank ceased to be covered by the statutory exemption once it was sold and delivered, because the protection under the Gold (Control) Act extended only while the gold remained in Government or RBI possession or control. A licensed dealer could not shift its business premises merely by routing the sale through a commission agent, and the accounting restrictions continued to apply to the transaction. A higher penalty under Section 74 could not be imposed where the notice invoked only Section 75 and no prior notice or opportunity was given on the specific footing that the gold was liable to confiscation; the penalty was therefore confined to the lesser amount permissible under the notice. Writ relief was available notwithstanding an alternative remedy because the action offended natural justice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72949</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>