9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (4) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would regard as the untenable nature of the orders passed against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is carrying on the business of a goldsmith under the name and style of M/s. Anvekar Brothers at a place in Bombay. On receiving information that his mother is sick he proceeded to his native place in the then Union Territory of Goa on or about 6th November, 1973. He had a brother by name Gurudas who was left behind to look after the shop. On 12th of November 1973 the petitioner returned to Bombay, his mother having recovered sufficiently enabling him to do so. On return the petitioner found that on 8th of November 1973 a search had been carried out in the premises of the shop and 49 gold bars with foreign markings had been recovered in tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Gurudas. 4. The petitioner also received two notices, one under the Gold (Control) Act and the other under the Customs Act, both dated 11th November, 1975. The petitioner gave his explanation, which was more or less on the lines on which he had given his statement earlier, namely that on being summoned on account of his mother s sickness he proceeded to his native place in Goa and had returned to Bombay on 12th November, 1973. In his absence the raid had taken place and without his knowledge let alone with his connivance, somebody might have secreted the gold bars in his shop. 5. This explanation was rejected by the Additional Collector of Customs, who is also the concurrent authority under the Gold (Control) Act, and he by his order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to interfere with the orders of the two authorities below and by its order dated 30th of March 1981 the Central Government dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner. A consequence of this final order passed under the Gold (Control) Act was the cancellation of the Gold Dealer s Licence of the petitioner, which was brought about by an order passed on 21st of May 1981 by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay, who has concurrent jurisdiction under the Gold (Control) Act also. The petitioner has now approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the view taken by the authorities under the Gold (Control) Act holding the petitioner guilty of abetting the illegal activities of his brother Gurudas who had be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the respondents, has tried to support the impugned orders on the basis of the reasons given therein. The affidavit in reply to this petition also is to the same effect. It is not necessary for me to deal with them because I am of the opinion that the entire approach of the authorities below is vitiated by irrelevant considerations or at least by considerations which are totally divorced from the facts. 10. In the result, the petition must succeed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The order dated 21st May, 1981 passed by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay canceling the gold dealer s licence of the petitioner is set aside. 11. There will be no order as to costs in this petition. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
