https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73950 A proprietary licence did not automatically authorise a newly constituted partnership firm to carry on gold business, so the firm's continued trading without a fresh licence constituted contravention of the licensing requirement under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Section 52 was held inapplicable because it applies to a change in the constitution of a partnership firm, not to conversion from proprietorship to partnership. The seized gold, being stock-in-trade of an unlicensed business, was liable to confiscation. The penal consequences were, however, moderated on the facts: the fines and penalties were interfered with and the redemption fine was reduced. en-us Fri, 26 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73950 A proprietary licence did not automatically authorise a newly constituted partnership firm to carry on gold business, so the firm's continued trading without a fresh licence constituted contravention of the licensing requirement under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Section 52 was held inapplicable because it applies to a change in the constitution of a partnership firm, not to conversion from proprietorship to partnership. The seized gold, being stock-in-trade of an unlicensed business, was liable to confiscation. The penal consequences were, however, moderated on the facts: the fines and penalties were interfered with and the redemption fine was reduced. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 26 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73950