LAXMI JEWELLERY Vs. GOLD CONTROL ADMINISTRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application having been heard in a contested one, we do not consider it necessary to issue any Rule. In our view this case is concluded by findings of fact. Therefore, we do not consider this to be a fit one by calling upon the Tribunal to state the case.

(2.) Mr. Lahiry appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the finding that the Petitioners were dealers was perverse and not supported by any evidence.

(3.) Mr. Mitra appearing on behalf of the respondent has drawn our attention to the fact that the authorities under the Gold Control Act have recorded that it was a case of the Petitioners themselves, that some of the ornaments seized had been given by their alleged customers for polishing. The Petitioners themselves claim to be silversmiths. According to the definition of the deader in Section 2(h) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, any person who carries on directly or indirectly the business of making, manufacturing, preparing, repairing, polishing, buying, selling, supplying, distributing, melting process ... would be a dealer.