https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289559 Section 16(5) of the Gold (Control) Act was construed on its plain language, and the limitation in clause (a) was not read into clause (b). Where gold articles and ornaments were owned or possessed by an individual or family within the permissible limit, no declaration obligation arose, so notices issued on a contrary construction were without jurisdiction. On the pleaded and effectively undisputed facts, the challenge succeeded and the seized gold sovereigns were directed to be returned. en-us Thu, 02 Nov 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Aug 2020 16:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289559 Section 16(5) of the Gold (Control) Act was construed on its plain language, and the limitation in clause (a) was not read into clause (b). Where gold articles and ornaments were owned or possessed by an individual or family within the permissible limit, no declaration obligation arose, so notices issued on a contrary construction were without jurisdiction. On the pleaded and effectively undisputed facts, the challenge succeeded and the seized gold sovereigns were directed to be returned. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 02 Nov 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289559