<?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>1988 (3) TMI 282 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73848</link>
    <description>A licensing authority deciding a gold dealer&#039;s licence application must act fairly, disclose the material relied on and avoid pre-determined reasoning. The rejection was found unsustainable where new grounds, turnover data and area-wise figures were introduced without fair notice, indicating breach of natural justice and bias. On the merits, the Gold Control regime required consideration of all relevant statutory factors, including need, experience, business viability and the broader right to carry on trade, and not turnover alone. The need criterion was only one factor, not an absolute bar to grant. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:36:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112127" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (3) TMI 282 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73848</link>
      <description>A licensing authority deciding a gold dealer&#039;s licence application must act fairly, disclose the material relied on and avoid pre-determined reasoning. The rejection was found unsustainable where new grounds, turnover data and area-wise figures were introduced without fair notice, indicating breach of natural justice and bias. On the merits, the Gold Control regime required consideration of all relevant statutory factors, including need, experience, business viability and the broader right to carry on trade, and not turnover alone. The need criterion was only one factor, not an absolute bar to grant. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73848</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>