<?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 (4) TMI 297 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80139</link>
    <description>Renewal of a gold dealer&#039;s licence under Section 27(6)(b) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 is an enabling discretion that must be exercised on the merits of the dealer&#039;s case. Rule 3(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 does not require rejection in every case of contravention, and non-renewal carries consequences comparable to cancellation, including disabling the dealer from business and triggering Section 53 obligations. Where the adjudication orders relied on are still under appeal, renewal should not normally be refused merely on that basis, since the underlying proceedings remain sub judice. The text notes that suspension, shorter renewal periods, or action for serious or repeated violations remain available alternatives.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:38:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117285" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (4) TMI 297 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80139</link>
      <description>Renewal of a gold dealer&#039;s licence under Section 27(6)(b) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 is an enabling discretion that must be exercised on the merits of the dealer&#039;s case. Rule 3(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 does not require rejection in every case of contravention, and non-renewal carries consequences comparable to cancellation, including disabling the dealer from business and triggering Section 53 obligations. Where the adjudication orders relied on are still under appeal, renewal should not normally be refused merely on that basis, since the underlying proceedings remain sub judice. The text notes that suspension, shorter renewal periods, or action for serious or repeated violations remain available alternatives.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80139</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>