https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165740 A search and seizure under Section 66 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 required pre-existing material giving the officer reason to believe that the Act had been, was being, or was about to be contravened. On the record, no concrete basis for that belief was shown; mere suspicion from association with jewellers, a blank voucher, or locker keys was insufficient, and the statutory condition could not be justified after the event. The seizure was therefore without jurisdiction and the ornaments had to be returned. The existence of appeal and revision under the Act did not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenge was to action taken wholly without authority, so the writ petition was maintainable. en-us Mon, 02 Dec 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:32:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165740 A search and seizure under Section 66 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 required pre-existing material giving the officer reason to believe that the Act had been, was being, or was about to be contravened. On the record, no concrete basis for that belief was shown; mere suspicion from association with jewellers, a blank voucher, or locker keys was insufficient, and the statutory condition could not be justified after the event. The seizure was therefore without jurisdiction and the ornaments had to be returned. The existence of appeal and revision under the Act did not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenge was to action taken wholly without authority, so the writ petition was maintainable. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 02 Dec 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165740