Rajasthan Jaipur Court March 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Acto. Vs. M/S Eicher Limited, Alwar.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. This revision petition has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tax Board dtd.6.8.2002 rejecting its appeal against the order of the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) dtd.8.5.2002 whereby both these Appellate Authorities held that the learned assessing authority was not justified in imposing penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,95,019/- on the ground that the declaration in Form ST-18A accompanying the other relevant documents like Sale Invoice, Bill of Entry, Transport Receipt etc. was found blank in respect of column No.2 to 9 of the said declaration in ST 18A.2. The learned Tax Board relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of M/s Jitendra and Co. reported in RLW 2000(4) Raj. 69 set aside the said penalty on the ground that since the documents disclosing all the particulars about the columns unfilled in the declaration were available at the time of checking itself, even though the said declaration had a few columns blank, it would be taken as...
M/S Prince Stone Company. Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the Tax Board dated 22.09.2005 whereby the Tax Board while dismissing the appeal of the asseessee upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Kota dated 02.09.2003 for the assessment year 1991-92. The appellate authorities have concurrently held against the petitioner-assessee that on the sale of Hydraulic Excavator by the petitioner-assessee, a registered dealer of stones, was taxable in the hands of the petitioner-assessee, and in the absence of the non-disclosure of such transaction in the Books of Accounts and returns filed by the assessee under the Sales Tax law, the Assessing Authority imposed tax, interest and penalty under Section 16 (1) (i) of the RST Act, 1994 on the assessee by the impugned assessment order dated 04.10.1999.2. Being aggrieved by the said order of learned Tax Board, the petitioner-assessee is before this Court by way of present revision petition.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-asse...
Commercial Taxes Officer. Vs. Ms/ M/S Godrej G.E. Appliances, Tonk Roa ...
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. This revision petition filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the Tax Board dated 26.8.04 whereby the Tax Board rejected the revenue's appeal in favour of the assessee and held that optional service charges at the rate of Rs. 175/- per refrigerator under a separate contract of warranty for providing after sale services in respect of unit of refrigerators sold by the assessee for a period of four years, would not form part of taxable sale price in the hands of the respondent-assessee and, therefore, the imposition of the difference tax, interest and penalty was not justified.3. The said impugned order of Tax Board dated 26.8.04 was passed following its earlier detailed order of Tax Board in the case of the same assessee while deciding appeal No. 1185/1998/Jaipur M/s. Godrej GE Appliance Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer on 28th October, 2002 wherein the Division Bench of Tax Board referring to decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Cou...
Jafar Mohammad. Vs. SirajuddIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:(i) By issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 27.3.2006 (Annexure-3) passed by respondent no. 6 Municipal Board, Sambharlake and order dated 23.3.2007 (Annexure-4) passed by respondent no. 7 Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur be quashed and set-aside.(ii) Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner. (iii) The cost of this writ petition may also kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.2. Contextual facts of the case depict that the property situated at Chhota Bajar, Sambharlake was entered in the name of Khudabux. The respondents no. 1 and 2, who are the legal representatives of Khudabux, submitted an application to the Nagar Palika, Sambharlake for entering their name in place of Khudabux. The petitioner filed the objections before the Nagar Palika, Sambharla...
Commercial Taxes Officer, AlwA. Vs. M/S J L C Electroment Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
1. This revision petition has been filed by the Revenue against the order of learned Tax Board dated 29.11.2005 dismissing its appeal against the order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 26.10.2004.2. Both the appellate authorities thus in favour of respondent-assessee held that penalty of Rs.56,790/- could not be imposed on the respondent-assessee under Section 78 (5) of the RST Act, 1994 on account of declaration in Form No. ST-18A as per Rule 53 of the RST Rules, 1995 being found to be incomplete with respect to two commodities, namely, electrical control panel and V-Belts, and said declaration being not available in respect of third commodity, electrical motors imported by the respondent-assessee from the supplier of Gaziabad, within the State of U.P.; which were checked on 04.10.2000 while being transported in vehicle No. HR-38/D/4742 at Border Check Post- Shahjanhapur.3. Learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Achintya Kaushik appearing for Mr. R.B. Mathur, relying upon the deci...
Om Singh @ Kuldeep Singh. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.05.2010, passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Magistrate has denied bail to the petitioner, and aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2010, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 29.05.2010, the petitioner has approached this Court.2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 19.05.2010, Kishan Singh lodged a report at Police Station Nadbai, wherein he claimed that he along with his nephew, Ravindra, were standing near his motorcycle. While on their way to Kheri Devi Singh they stopped to drink water near Mai village. At that time, the petitioner came there on a tractor. The petitioner told Ravindra that he will not spare him today. He dashed the tractor against Ravindra and ran over Ravindra's body. He subsequently back tracked the tractor over Ravindra's body. Therefore, Ravidnra died on the spot. Upon that report,...
State Bank of IndiA. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner State Bank of India has sought the following relief:i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned proclamation of sale dated 18.2.2011 (Annexure-5) issued by the respondent no. 3 may kindly be quashed and set aside and be further pleased to declare that the respondents are not having any authority to auction the properties in dispute as they do not belong to the assessee company but belong to the guarantors / owners who have created equitable mortgage in favour of the petitioner bank. ii) By further appropriate writ, order or direction, the communication dated 8.6.2010 issued by the respondent no.3 may also be declared as null and void as the same has been issued under misconception treating the properties to be of M/s. Udai Edible Oil Products Limited. iii) Or any other appropriate relief may kindly be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the cas...
Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle-i, Commercial Taxes Deptt. Jaip ...
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
1. These two revision petitions have been filed by the Revenue being aggrieved by the order of learned Tax Board dated 23.04.2002 rejecting the Revenue's appeals against the assessee.2. Learned Tax Board by its impugned order upholding the order of first appellate authority dated 03.07.2000 held in favour of assessee, a registered dealer of computer and computer accessories and their parts, that goods in question, namely, CVT (Constant Voltage Transformer) and UPS (Uninterruptible Power Source) sold by the assessee are taxable @ 4% as accessories of computer and not under residuary entry @ 10% in the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The Assessing Authority had imposed 6% difference tax on these goods, namely, CVT(s) and UPS in the hands of the assessee by the impugned assessment orders, against which both the appeals by the higher appellate forum were decided in favour of assessee. Hence, these revision petitions at the instance of Revenue.3. Learned Tax Board in its impugned orde...
M/S Parasnath Trading Co. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner, Special Circle, Com ...
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 by the assessee aggrieved by the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board dated 30/8/2003,whereby, reversing the order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 21/5/1998, the learned Tax Board restored the penalty under Section 77 (8) of the Act amounting to Rs.32,900/- on the petitioner assessee.2. Section 77 (8) of the RST Act, 1994 permits the Assessing Authority to impose penalty equal to the amount of five times of the tax livable on such goods which are found to be unaccounted for in the Books of Accounts maintained by the assessee, after giving an opportunity to the assessee and after holding such further inquiry as it may consider necessary.3. The learned Assessing Authority by the impugned order passed on the same date of survey i.e. 22/11/1997 imposed the said penalty for the alleged sale of 160 bags of `Urad Dal' for Rs.1,64,505.60 on the ground that in the stock register maintained by the a...
Kanhaiya Lal MeenA. Vs. the Managing Director, Sbbj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:a) By issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, the notice 2.3.2010 Annexure-1 and the notice dated 17.1.2011 Annexure-3 passed by the respondents be quashed and set-aside.b) By issuance of an appropriate writ or direction, the respondent No. 1 be directed to exempt the petitioner from recovering the amount of illegal interest of Rs. 8,63,000/- against the loan of Rs. 5,76,000/- which has been calculated @ 13.5% per annum with compounded interest.c) That the compound interest of 13.5% per annum which is being charged by the bank from the petitioner be converted into simple interest of 6% per annum.d) The cost of writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.2. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that in the year 2006-07, the petitioner took loan of Rs. 5,03,000/- and Rs. 73,000/- from State B...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »