<?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>1982 (3) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41291</link>
    <description>Renewal of a gold dealer licence could not be refused solely for low turnover where the governing rule allowed renewal on proof of sufficient reasons. The applicant&#039;s explanation that illness and disability affected business was a relevant circumstance under Explanation (I) to Rule 3(ee) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969, and the authorities were required to consider and decide that explanation before rejecting renewal. Because the appellate and revisional orders did not properly address this statutory proviso or record findings on it, the refusal could not stand and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:41:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79822" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (3) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41291</link>
      <description>Renewal of a gold dealer licence could not be refused solely for low turnover where the governing rule allowed renewal on proof of sufficient reasons. The applicant&#039;s explanation that illness and disability affected business was a relevant circumstance under Explanation (I) to Rule 3(ee) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969, and the authorities were required to consider and decide that explanation before rejecting renewal. Because the appellate and revisional orders did not properly address this statutory proviso or record findings on it, the refusal could not stand and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41291</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>