Delhi Court May 2007 Judgments

Sharad and Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)10VST100(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The assessed carries on business of resale of photographic goods and is also registered as a dealer in electronic goods.2. For the assessment year 1990-91 the assessed filed its returns and on 3rd February, 1992, the Assessing Officer, STO, Ward Nos. 35 passed an assessment raising a demand of Rs. 17,91,802/- against the dealer.3. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened and in the reassessment order dated 25th May, 1992, it is stated that it was later on discovered (after the original assessment order passed) that the dealer was taxed on a lower rate and certain documents sent by the Enforcement Branch also remained unconsidered inadvertently because of rush of time barred cases. In the reassessment proceedings, the dealer was required to pay tax of Rs. 2,34,610/- in addition to the demand already created in the earlier assessment order.4. Feeling aggrieved, the dealer preferred an appeal which was disposed of by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax by his orde...

Nanak Chand Vs. Delhi Jal Board

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT489; 2007(96)DRJ239; [2007(114)FLR121]

Hima Kohli, J.1. With the consent of counsels for the parties, both these writ petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposal by passing a common order, as the issues involved are common.2. By way of the present petitions the petitioners have sought issuance of a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing/declaring the order dated 10th April, 2006 passed by the respondent rejecting the claims of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. For the sake of convenience, only the facts of W.P.(C) No. 12609, are being stated in brief. The father of the petitioner was working as a `Fitter II Class' with Delhi Jal Board and died in harness while in service on 23rd October, 2001 at Delhi, leaving behind the petitioner and the petitioner's mother. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground vide application dated 15th February, 2002. On 20th September, 2002, the respondent after considering the application of the p...

Rakesh Kalia Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)210CTR(Del)342

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner, who is an income-tax assessed, had filed return for the assessment year 1992-93 on 29.8.1992, the due date being 31.8.1992, declaring his total income as Rs. 49,300/- from salary and meeting fee etc. It was stated in this return that during this year he had received an amount of Rs. 2,55,000/- from the NRE account under the Foreign Remittance (Immunities) Scheme, 1991. The petitioner had filed original copy of declaration dated 30.1.1992 purportedly stamped and signed by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Race Course Road, Bangalore, as a proof of receipt of the said amount. On this return, Order of Assessment dated 26.2.1993 was passed and tax demand of Rs. 1,67,441/- was raised against the petitioner. In the assessment order, the Income-Tax Officer (for short, 'ITO') observed that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,55,000/- had actually come from the Resident Depositor's Account and not from the NRE account. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Race C...

Smt. Hirdesh JaIn W/O Shri B.B. JaIn Vs. Delhi Admn. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT480; 2007(96)DRJ99

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. This is a pathetic tale of the petitioner who has been deprived of salary for the period 4.10.76 to 27.10.77 and has to fight a long battle of litigation. Vide letter dated 25.9.76, the petitioner was appointed on the post of drawing teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 425-640/- w.e.f. 4.10.76 and in the said appointment letter it was clearly stated that she was appointed against a vacancy duly sanctioned vide Education Officer's letter dated 6.7.76. In the said appointment letter it was also stated that appointment on the said post was purely temporary and subject to the approval of the Education Officer of NDMC/Director of Education on completion of all formalities as laid down in the Education Act, 1973. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the sanction letter dated 6.7.76 addressed by the Education Officer to the Manager/Administrative Officer of the school which clearly shows that sanction was accorded by the Director of Education for the said pos...

Earnest Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(3)ARBLR183(Delhi)

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (The Act) has been filed by the petitioner to seek reference of its disputes with the respondent to arbitration in terms of an arbitration agreement contained in the contract agreement number CWE/PM/N.18/98-99.2. It is the admitted position that the parties had entered into the aforesaid agreement which contains an arbitration agreement in clause 70 of the IAFW-2249. Under this clause disputes between the parties to the contract shall, other than disputes in respect of which the decision of the CWE or any other person is, by the contract expressed to be final and binding, after written notice by either party to the contract to the other, be referred to the sole arbitration of any serving officer having degree in engineering or equivalent on having passed final/direct final examination of subdivision II of Institute of Surveyor (India) recognized by the Government of India, to be appointed by th...

Mohan Generator and Pumps P. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(119)ECC19

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 28.2.2005 upholding the order-in-original confirming the demand of duty of a total amount of Rs. 3,29,078/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposing penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- under Rules 9(2), 52A and 173Q of Central Excise Rules of 1944 and ordering payment of interest under Section 11AB of the Act.2. The appellant was registered as a manufacturer of diesel generating sets falling under sub-headings 8502.90, 8501 and 8408 of the Tariff Act. According to the Revenue, the appellant was availing exemption under the Notification No. 9/99-CE dated 28.2.99 and was availing the facility upto 26.4.199. As per the conditions incorporated in the notification an assessee availing the benefit thereunder could not opt out of the facility in the remaining part of the financial year, for availing the benefit of the Notification No. 8/99-CE dated 28.2.99. It was alleged that the appellant had filed a decl...

Poddar Pigments Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)10STJ224CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. Heard both the sides. The appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the refund claim of the appellants was rejected.The refund claim was filed on the ground that the appellants had wrongly paid the amount of service tax as recipient of goods transporter operators service. The contention is that in the case of CCE Meerut v. L.H. Sugar Factories reported in 2005 (187) ELT 5 (SC), it was held that no demand can be raised under Section 73 of the Act for the past period. It is also submitted that the service tax was paid under protest.I find that the present case is not of demand but of refund of service tax paid by the recipient of the service. This issue is now covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of J.K. Cement Ltd reported in 2006 (3) STR 14 in favour of the revenue. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund, which was filed on the same ground. The Tribunal held that since the service tax has been paid and amended provision particularly Sec...

Ms. Pratima Sharma W/O Shri Vs. Shri Naresh Dayal, Secretary,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This Contempt Petition has been filed for alleged non-implementation of order dated 06.06.2006 in O.A. No. 2784/2005 in Pratima Sharma v.Union of India and 12. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we dispose of the OA with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for grant of higher pay scale from the date of her initial recruitment/appointment to the post at par with Smt. Renu Dar in compliance of the decision of the Tribunal (supra), by a detailed and speaking order to be issued within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the event the claim of the applicant is acceded to, she would be entitled to the higher pay scale and arrears thereof. No costs.3. Two month's time was given to the non-petitioners for implementation of the order from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order and the time was extended by one month on the request of the non-petitioners. The Respondents, it is stated in the C.P.,...

M.K. Bansal S/O Shri T.R. Bansal Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this O.A. the Applicant has assailed the order dated 09.07.2001 of the disciplinary authority (DA) imposing the penalty of reduction to lower post/grade, order dated 09.10.2001 of the Appellate Authority and order dated 15.09.2003 of the Revisional Authority, the charge-sheet and Enquiry Officer's report.2. Major penalty proceedings against the Applicant were started under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1968 by communicating the charges through memorandum dated 27.07.1994. The charge against the Applicant is as follows: Shri M.K. Bansal, while working as Accounts Assistant in Traffic Accounts Office/Northern Railway, Delhi Kishanganj during the year 1988 failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway Servant in as much as: That Shri M.K. Bansal appeared in the Appendix III-A (IREM) Examination, 1988 and adopted unfair means to get his name placed in the list of successful candidates for his further promotion...

Shri Kishori Lal, Head Booking Vs. the Chairman, Railway Board and

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The Office Memorandum No. 32/80/DLI/05 dated 05.12.2005 rejecting the Applicant's claim for promotion in Moradabad Division in the grade of Rs. 5000-9000/- has been challenged.2. The matrix of the facts briefly is as follows. The Applicant was initially appointed as Coaching Clerk in Delhi Division of Northern Railway but later sought and granted transfer to Moradabad Division. On 21.11.1999, when he was working as Head Booking Clerk at Amroha railway station, there was a vigilance raid and some cash was found short. He was proceeded against under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 by memorandum dated 10.05.2000. The following charges were framed against the Applicant: i) He demanded and accepted Rs. 300/- against Rs. 297/- for issuing three adults 2nd M/Exp tickets from AMRO to LDH, thus he charged Rs. 3/- excess from the decoy passenger for his personal gain. ii) Shri Kishore Lal, HBC produced Govt. cash Rs. 17148/- against Rs. 17168/- as per acc...