https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20729 A prior final writ decision barred ing the same challenge to the income-tax authorities' refusal to adjust tax dues against seized primary gold and to their proposed handover of the gold for action under the Gold (Control) Act, so the later petitions on those points were not maintainable. The court also held that a confiscation order could not stand where no fresh, specific show-cause notice under section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act had been issued for confiscation of the primary gold itself. Because the statute required written notice of the grounds of proposed confiscation and a fair opportunity to object, the absence of that notice rendered the confiscation invalid. en-us Wed, 18 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:55:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20729 A prior final writ decision barred ing the same challenge to the income-tax authorities' refusal to adjust tax dues against seized primary gold and to their proposed handover of the gold for action under the Gold (Control) Act, so the later petitions on those points were not maintainable. The court also held that a confiscation order could not stand where no fresh, specific show-cause notice under section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act had been issued for confiscation of the primary gold itself. Because the statute required written notice of the grounds of proposed confiscation and a fair opportunity to object, the absence of that notice rendered the confiscation invalid. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 18 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20729