Rajasthan Court April 1984 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.
Redhey Shyam and anr. Vs. Sohan Singh Manohar Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)425
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Respondent Sohan Singh, Partner of M/s Sohan Singh Manohar Singh, PWD Contractors. B-Block, Sri Ganganagar was the petitioner in the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India The writ petition was filed in grievance to the decision of the PWD and Mining Departments for recovering amount from the security deposit and the outstanding bills of the petitioner respondent to be paid to Radheyshyam, appellant in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 665 of 1972, by way of cost of the ballast said to have been excavated by the petitioner-respondent from the area under the mining lease of Radheyshyam. The prayer was for quashing exhibits 9 and 8 dated March 24, 1970 and November 9, 1970 respectively relating to that recovery. The learned Single Judge by his order dated September 14, 1972 allowed the writ petition and quashed the aforesaid two orders. The petitioner was allowed costs from the respondents in the writ petition.2. Dissatisfied by the ...
Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle Vs. Bhoot Oil Mills
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN286
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This Court by its order July 4, 1973 passed on an application Under Section 15(3A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. XXIX of 1954) (for short 'the Act' herein) directed the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, (which will for the sake of brevity he referred to as 'the Board') to refer the following question for decision to this Court:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the turnover of castor oil amounting Rs. 33,993.22 was liable to tax at the hands of the assessee.?2. M/s Bhoot Oil Mills which is respondent, shall be referred to as 'the Dealer' hereinafter.3. The Dealer was assessed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jodhpur, on October 15, 1966 for the assessment period April 1, 1961 to March 31, 1962. The assessing Authority held that the Dealer had wrongfully sold castor oil worth Rs. 33,993.22 to Textile and Leather Industries on the basis of Form S.T. 17, by which the Textile and Leather Industries claimed that the items...
State Vs. Sahachari Udhyog Mandir
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1984
Reported in: [1986]61STC30(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. These are five connected references under Section 15(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. 29 of 1954) (for short 'the Act'), and the Board of Revenue, Ajmer ('the Board' herein), has referred the following questions of law for our decision :(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the cutting and stitching of umbrella cloth so as to make umbrella covers is a process which converts the said cloth into different commodity and it ceases to come within the definition of textile fabrics and to be eligible for exemption from tax ?(2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of cases Nos. 16, 17 and 19, the orders of the assessing authority taxing the turnover as escaped turnover are in conformity with the provisions of Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act ?2. It is not necessary to state the facts for the reasons that the learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that in the three cases proceedings for reassessment under Section 12 of t...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Babu Bakery
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1984
Reported in: [1984]58STC262(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Board of Revenue for Rajastan, Ajmer, has referred the following question for our decision :Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board was justified in holding that bread is cooked food within the meaning of the term used in Section 3(1 )(a) of the Sales Tax Act and hence not taxable ?2. The non-petitioner M/s. Babu Bakery, Udaimandir, Jodhpur (assessee), was assessed on 4th January, 1969. Sales tax at 2% was charged on the sale of bread. On appeal; ^e Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jodphur, set aside the assessment. The revision was also dismissed and that had led to the present reference.3. Section 3(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. XXIX of 1954) (for short 'the Act' herein) as it stood at the relevant time is as under:3. Incidence of taxation.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act every dealer whose turnover in the previous year in respect of sales or supplies of goods exceeds-(a) in the case of a deale...
Man Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Judge Industrial Tribunal and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN109
D.P. Gupta, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the award passed by the Judge. Industrial Tribunal No. II, Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated April 14, 1975, allowing the workmen one half wages for the strike period.2. The undisputed facts are that the workmen of the Man Industrial Corporation Limited, Jaipur (hereinafter called 'the Corporation') went on strike on August 16, 1969, along with the workmen in other Engineering Industries. The strike in the Corporation continued upto October 8, 1969 as the workmen demanded implementation of the recommendations of the Wage Board, while the employers were disputing the demand made by the workmen. After the strike was over, the workmen raised an industrial dispute regarding the wages for the strike period from August 16, 1969 to October 8, 1969. The State Government referred the aforesaid demand of the workmen relating to the wages for the strike period to the Industrial Tribunal No. II, Jaipur. Th...
C.T.O. Vs. Babu Bakery
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN354
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer has referred the following question for our decision:Whether in the facts and circumstance of the case, Board was justified in holding that bread is cooked food within the meaning of the term used in Section 3(1)(a) of the Sales Tax Act and hence not taxable?The non-petitioner M/s Babu Bakery Udaimandir, Jodhpur (assessee) was assessed on January 4, 1969. Sales-tax at 2% was charged on the sale of bread. On appeal the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jodhpur set aside the assessment. The revision was also dismissed and that had led to the present Reference.2. Section 3(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. XXIX of 1954) (for short 'the Act herein) as it stood at the relevant time is as under:(3) Incidence of taxation:--(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every dealer whose turn over in the previous year in respect of sales or supplies of goods exceeds.(a) In the case of a dealer who imports ...
Ganga Sahai Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)228
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 2nd February, 1983 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. By the order aforesaid, the Sessions Judge, dismissed the revision petition which wastreated as an appeal under Section 59 of the Rajasthan Forest Act and upheld the order dated 5th January, 1983 passed by the Judicial Magistrate. BLaratpur in Misc. Petition No. 1/1983. The Judicial Magistrate by the order aforesaid had directed that the wood that was seized in truck No. RRB 812 by the District Forest Officer, Bharatpur on 31st December, 1982 should be kept in the custory of the District Forest Officer, Bharatpur after being weighed in presence of the petitioners.2. I have heard Shri Rathore, the learned Counsel for the learned Public Prosecutor. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the wood which has been seized belongs to the petitioners and that if the wood is kept in the custody of District Forest Officer as per di...
Ganesh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)46
P.K. Banerjee, C.J.1. This rule is directed against an order passed by the Additional Collector, Pali under Rule 272 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules by which the settlement of the land under Rule 266 of the aforesaid Rules to the petitioner by the Panchayat was set aside.2. Mr. Shrimali on behalf of the petitioner contended that Rule 272 of the Rules is not applicable in as much as relevant amendment was made long after the settlement was made in favour of the petitioner. The Abadi Rules were not in existence at that point of time. Secondly it is argued by Mr. Shrimali that the land which was settled, was abadi land or in any case it was used as such for quite a long time.3. Mr. Parekh on behalf of the respondent however, contends that the land in question is first of all not an abadi land and thereafter u/r 266 of the Rules it cannot be settled and secondly it is argued that this land is within 50 yards from the road and it cannot be regularised under th...
Abdul Gaffar and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)232
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This revision petition by the accused petitioners is directed against the conviction of the petitioners under Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act and to a sentence of fine of Rs. 20/- and under Section 323 and 323 read with Section 109 IPC to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 days.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners did not challenge the conviction of the petitioners but his only submission is that the accused petitioners have already undergone a sentence for about 1- months and looking to the facts and circumstances of this case they should be released for the period already undergone by them. According to the prosecution story the accused petitioners gave an abuse to Bhanwar Singh constable and asked him to give a cigarette. Shri Bhanwar Singh remonstrated the accused-petitioners for giving an abuse and on this the accused persons caught hold of...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur Vs. Shri Ram Niwas.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Raj)43; [1984]149ITR403(Raj)
This application has been moved by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), to draw up a statement of case and refered to this court for opinion the following questions mentioned in para. 4 of the said application :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deletion the addition of Rs. 48,479 ?2. Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunals finding that the Department has failed to substantiate its finding that Shri Harish Chandra was benamidar of the assessee is perverse and contrary to the material on record ?'Briefly stated, the facts are that while completing the assessment of Shri Ramniwas, non-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), the ITO included a sum of Rs. 48,479 in the total income of the assessee on the ground that the said income ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »