Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 1984 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1984 (4) TMI 292 - SC - CustomsConstitutional validity of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 challenged - Held that:- Neither of the contentions has any force. As regards the attack under Art. 14, sufficient material has been placed in the counter-affidavit of Shri K.S. Venkataramani, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Finance (filed in W.P Nos. 918-953 of 1977) showing how the classification made between the two categories in the context of making a declaration under S. 16 in relation to gold owned, possessed, held or controlled by them is based on intelligible differentia having a nexus to the object of the Act. The submitted material in the counter-affidavit not merely furnishes the intelligible differentia for the classification made but also shows that the classification has a reasonable nexus with the object of the Act and the reasons for denying the exemption limits to licensed dealers or refiners are also valid and referable to the object of the Act. As regards the second ground of challenge it is difficult to appreciate how the provision could be regarded as unnecessary or one which casts an unreasonable burden on the licensed dealer or refiner. In fact the reasons for introducing the provision as indicated above justify its enactment if the objects of the Act are to be achieved. Under S. 16(7) it is provided that the licensed dealer or refiner shall make a declaration “in accordance with the provisions of this section” which means he has to do so within 30 days of his acquiring the owenership, possession, custody or control of such gold. With such time-limit being provided the burden cast cannot be said to be unreasonable, especially when the provision is found to be necessary to carry out the objectives of the Act. Having regard to the above discussion, the challenge to the constitutionality of S.16(7) must fail. A remedy by way of an appeal to correct any erroneous order that may be passed under Sec. 52 has been provided for. In this view of the matter it is difficult to accept the contention that Section 52 suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power or for that reason the said provision is unconstitutional. The challenge to that section therefore, has to be rejected. The power to extend the initial period or the extended period must be exercised subject to the observance of the aforesaid two safeguards. In view of the above discussion it is clear that the challenge to Section 79 and the second proviso thereto has to fail. The purpose served by sub-rule (2)(a) of Rule 3 is entirely different from the purpose served by one or more of the steps that are required to be taken by a dealer under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 and therefore, it cannot be said that because of the provision contained in sub-rule (2)(a) the steps contemplated under sub-rule (1) are unreasonable. The validity of the amended Section 100 read with Rule 3(1) must therefore be upheld. We find some substance in the grievance made by the petitioners and when these aspects of the amended Forms were put to the Counsel for the Respondents, he fairly conceded that either the new Forms will have to be suitably revised or the old Forms could again be revived. We, therefore, direct the Administrator to look into these grievances and remedy the same by taking appropriate action and hope that in the meanwhile no action penal or otherwise would be taken against licensed dealers for failure to maintain accounts in the amended Forms G.S. 11 and G.S. 12. The challenge to S. 27(7)(b) of the Act, in furtherance whereof the facility of effecting peripatetic sales of gold ornaments through travelling salesman in various parts of the country was withdrawn, must also fail. Section 27 (7) (b), which confines a licensed dealer to carry on business as such dealer to the premises specified in his licence, being regulatory in character does not violate any of his rights under the Constitution. W.P. dismissed.
|