https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74909 Possession of new gold ornaments in substantial trade quantities may justify an inference of unlicensed dealing under Section 27(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, because the wide definition of "dealer" covers buying, selling, supplying, distributing and converting gold. The adjudicatory standard applied was preponderance of probabilities, and unsupported claims that the ornaments were family property were rejected. The fine and penalty were moderated because the ornaments were only of 20/22 ct. purity and full sale was not proved, so the monetary burden was considered excessive on the record. en-us Fri, 07 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74909 Possession of new gold ornaments in substantial trade quantities may justify an inference of unlicensed dealing under Section 27(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, because the wide definition of "dealer" covers buying, selling, supplying, distributing and converting gold. The adjudicatory standard applied was preponderance of probabilities, and unsupported claims that the ornaments were family property were rejected. The fine and penalty were moderated because the ornaments were only of 20/22 ct. purity and full sale was not proved, so the monetary burden was considered excessive on the record. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74909