Jaipur Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. j.s. verma, c.j.1. this is assessee's revision against the order of the sales tax tribunal, dated 13th august, 1985, by which the assessee's contention that it was liable to pay interest on the tax due only at the rate of 9 per cent instead of the higher rate at which the interest was claimed by the department, was rejected. the tribunal held that this contention of the assessee based on an order of the state government granting that benefit did not have the force of law.2. it was pointed out at the hearing that the assessee subsequently made an application to the commissioner, commercial taxes, rajasthan under section 17a of the rajasthan sales tax act, 1954, for waiver of the interest and penalty in respect of certain period and that application was decided by the commissioner's order, dated 26th april, 1986. the commissioner permitted the assessee to pay interest at 9 per cent only subject to the conditions specified in the order. it was also stated that a writ petition no. 380 of 1987 was filed in this court against the commissioner's aforesaid order, dated 26th april, 1986, but the same was dismissed by a division bench of this court on 22nd september, 1988.3. the result is that the aforesaid order of the commissioner permitting the assessee to pay interest at the rate of 9 per cent only subject to the conditions specified in that order stands upheld. the assessee in the present case is prepared to abide by this order of the commissioner in respect of the period involved in this revision. this being so, it is not necessary to decide the legal effect of the state government's orders dated 23rd june, 1976 and 27th september, 1976, which are the bases of the decision of the tribunal.4. consequently the assessee's revision is allowed and it is held that the assessee is liable to pay interest at 9. per cent subject to the conditions mentioned in the aforesaid commissioner's order, dated 26th april, 1986, for the period in question. the conditions imposed in the commissioner's order will operate with effect from the date of this order with suitable modifications.