Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1986 (10) TMI 141

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 22 gold coins (sovereigns) weighing 172 gms., besides a penalty of Rs. 1000/- imposed on appellant Govinda Rao under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The first appellant, Govinda Rao, is the father and appellant Smt. Lalitha Prasad (No. 169/86) is the daughter and the other appellants are appellant Govinda Rao s sons. 2. On the basis of information received from the Chief Enforcement Officer, Directorate of Enforcements, Trivandrum, the Inspector of Central Excise, C.I.U., Cochin along with his party searched the residence of appellant Govinda Rao at door No. XXXV/1164, Diwan s Road, Cochin on 29-9-1983 at about 12.10 p.m. and recovered 22 gold sovereigns from the front room of the house. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ticles and ornaments not exceeding 4,000 gms., no declaration need be made and in the instant case even if Govinda Rao is held to be the individual owner of the coins under seizure, having regard to the fact that 835 gms. of gold ornaments were also found along with the coins, the coins are not liable to seizure and confiscation on the ground of non-declaration. The learned counsel, to substantiate his plea, placed reliance on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sahib Dayal and Asha Rani v. Union of India and others - reported in 1983 E.L.T. 75 (P H). The learned counsel also placed reliance on the Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court reported in 1973 M.L.J. (1) 311 in the case of J.A. Abdul Hamid v. C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f law that arises for my consideration in the appeals is whether any declaration in terms of Section 16(1) of the Act is called for in the present case where admittedly appellant Govinda Rao was in possession of 22 gold coins (sovereigns) totally weighing 172 gms. and 835 gms. of gold ornaments. In order to better appreciate the legal question arising for determination I am extracting the relevant portion of the Act hereunder. Section 16(5)(a) reads - No declaration referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) shall be required to be made, - (a) in relation to articles, unless the total weight of articles owned, possessed, held or controlled by, - (i) ....... (ii) an individual (other than a minor, who is not a member of a fam .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... applicable and that there is no justification for importing the limit of Section 16(5)(a) in Section 16(5)(b) of the Act. The Calcutta High Court in the ruling reported in AIR 1977 Calcutta 468 in the case of Jay Krishna Saha and another v. D.N. Lal and others held that reading of, the provisions of Sec. 16(5) of the Act, with Section 16(6) thereof, they seem to contemplate two classes of families. One class of family are those who own only articles . The ceiling in such a case would be 50 grammes. Any holding in excess of 50 grammes will have to be declared before the authorities. The second class of family contemplated by those provisions are families which possess or own both articles and ornaments. In the case of such families, th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vinda Rao was in possession of 22 gold coins (sovereigns) besides 835 gms. of gold ornaments and in such a situation the only Section that would be applicable is Section 16(5)(b) of the Act. Therefore, following the ratio of the abovesaid rulings and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that no statutory obligation is cast on the appellant to make a declaration in respect of the gold coins (sovereigns) under seizure. I therefore hold that the impugned order appealed against is not legally sustainable and the same is therefore set aside and the appeal No. 165/86 is allowed. Since the appellants in the other appeals are only claimants, in the view I have taken in respect of the appeal relating to Govinda Rao ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates