Rajasthan Court July 1985 Judgments
Commercial Taxes Officer (Revisions) Vs. Ram Bagh Palace Hotel and anr ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-1985
Reported in: [1987]64STC338(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 15(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as it stood at the relevant time, is deemed to be an application for revision under Section 15(1) of the Act as amended by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984, because of the provisions contained in Sub-section (10) of Section 13 of the amending Act of 1984.2. M/s. Ram Bagh Palace Hotel, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), in the course of its business sells liquor to its customers. The assessee is registered as a dealer under the Act' and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. While making an assessment of the turnover of the assessee for the assessment year 1969-70, the assessing authority found that the assessee had not paid tax on sale of imported liquor. A notice was issued by the assessing authority on January 4, 1974, to the assessee to show cause why penalty be not imposed to the extent of Rs. 21,078.50 upon the assessee un...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. N.L. Singhal and Sons and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-1985
Reported in: [1987]64STC176(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J. 1. This application under Sub-section (3A) of Section 16 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), can be disposed of on the short ground that the application is incompetent as an appeal was not maintainable before the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue tinder Sub-section (4A) of Section 14 of the Act, against the order passed by the single Member of the Board of Revenue on an application for rectification under Section 17 of the Act.2. A single Member of the Board of Revenue by his order dated 1st January, 1976, allowed the application for rectification presented under Section 17 of the Act. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward I 'A', Circle 'F', Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessing authority'), filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue under Sub-section (4A) of Section 14 of the Act, which was dismissed by the order dated 11th August, 1978. An application for making a reference was filed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaju S/O Hurmat and Subhan S/O Sultan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN608
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg, District Bharatpur under his judgment dated 4th April, 1981, has convicted the accused-appellant Subhan son of Sultan under Sections 302 and 323, IPC and has further convicted the accused-appellant Chhaju under Section 302/34, IPC. Both the accused-appellant have been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to under-go three months' rigorous imprisonment. Accused-appellant Subhan has further been sentenced to under-go six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323, IPC. Both the substantive sentences of Subhan have been ordered to run concurrently.2. In village Kawanaka the fields of the accused persons and of the deceased, Abdul Gani, are situated. The position of their fields is deppicted in the site-plan Ex. P. 9, from which it will appear that the fields of Abdul Gani and Abdul Suleman and Yakub, two brothers of the d...
Tag this Judgment!Jeet Mal and Jaiwat Mal Vs. Teomal S/O Sadhu Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN304
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a civil second appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit has been dismissed by the first appellate court though it was decreed by the trial court. The plaintiffs claimed to be landlords of the property in question and they filed a suit for ejectment of the respondent defendant tenant from a shop situated in Dargah Bazar Ajmer and for arrears of rent and mesne profits.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that they purchased the property bearing AMC No. IV/430 situated at Dargah Bazar Ajmer, from Rellumal Chhabaldas by a registered sale deed dated the 27th October, 1967. The defendant was tenant in respect of a shop on the ground floor which is a part of the said property at the rate of Rs. 13/- per month. The defendant became a tenant of the plaintiff-Jeetmal by virtue of operation of law. Rellu Mal Chhabaldas instructed the defendant to attorn the plaintiffs as landlord from the date, the plaintiff had purchased the property. According to the sale-deed, as alleged i...
Tag this Judgment!Banswara Electric Supply Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1985
Reported in: [1986]160ITR127(Raj)
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')' made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal'), at the instance of the assessee, we are required to decide the following question, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 44,395 was taxable under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the hands of the applicant firm ?'2. The assessee, M/s. Banswara Electric Supply Co., is a partnership firm and had been carrying on the business of generation and distribution of electricity since 1947 and was a licensee of the Government of Rajasthan. The assessment year with which we are concerned in this case is 1962-63. In respect of the period up to March 31, 1960, the assessee claimed that a sum of Rs. 84,121 was payable by it to the Government as royalty. As no actual ...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer and ors. Vs. Swastik Gum Industries and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1985
Reported in: [1986]61STC83(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. Dealer-non-petitioner No. 1, at the relevant time, carried on business of gowar gum and gowar churi. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward 'C', Pali (assessing authority), by his assessment order dated 22nd April, 1972, for the period 22nd October, 1968, to 30th October, 1970, charged tax on the sale of gowar churi at the rate of 2 per cent. He did not accept the claim of the dealer that gowar churi was exempt from payment of tax under item No. 9 of the Schedule to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1964 (Act No. 29 of 1954) (for short 'the Act'). The dealer (assessee) filed appeal and the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jodhpur, by his order dated 9th January, 1974, allowed the appeal and held that gowar churi being cattle feed and being item different from gowar, falls under entry 9 of the Schedule and is, therefore, exempt from tax. The assessing authority filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer ('the Board' herein). The Division Be...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer (Revisions) Vs. Raj. Agro Industrie ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1985
Reported in: [1987]67STC178(Raj); 1985(2)WLN386
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer (Revisions), Ajmer (petitioner), has filed this application under Section 15(3A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Act No. 29 of 1964) (for short 'the Act'), for directing the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer ('the Board' herein) to state the case and refer the following question of law arising out of its order dated January 12, 1979, passed in Revision No. 10/78/ST, Sriganganagar:Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that the rate of tax on axles fitted with hubs and bearing will be at the rate of 4 per cent ?2. The application under Section 15(1) of the Act was not disposed of within 180 days by the Board.3. M/s. Rajasthan Agro Industries, Sriganganagar (dealer-assessee), is a registered partnership firm and inter alia manufactures axles and agricultural implements. The axles manufactured by it are used in bullock-carts. The dealer-assessee sells the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax and ors. Vs. Swastik Gum Industries and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN168
Kishan Mal Lodha, J.1. Dealer non-petitioner No. 1, at the relevant time, carried on business of Gowar Gum and Gowar Churi. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward 'C' Pali (Assessing Authority), by his assessment order dated 22, 1972 for the period: October 22, 1960 to October 30, 1970, charged tax on the sale of Gowar Churi at rate of 2%. He did not accept the claim of the dealer that Gowar Churi was exempt from payment of tax under item No. 9 of the Schedule to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Act No. XXIX of 1954) (for short 'the Act'). The dealer (assessee) filed appeal and the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Commercial Taxes, Jodhpur, by his order dated January 9, 1974, allowed the appeal and held that the Gowar Churi being cattle feed and being item different from Gowar, falls under Entry 9 of the Schedule and is. therefore, exempt from tax. The Assessing Authority filed revision before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer ('the Board' here in). The Division Bench of the Board, by ...
Tag this Judgment!HakimuddIn and ors. Vs. Anoop Singh ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN34
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. This civil second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff who won his suit in the trial court but lost it in the first appellate court.2. The deceased-plaintiff, who is now represented in this appeal by his legal representatives, instituted a suit for perpetual prohibitory injunction and the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1050/- against the defendant State and its Taxation Officer in the Court of Munsif, Udaipur on March 25, 1969. The case set-up in the plaint is that he was the owner of a light motor vehicle (jeep) No. RJT 69. The registration of the vehicle stood in his name and he had paid a sum of Rs. 100/- as road-tax at rate of Rs. 25/-per seat for the year 1968-69. On December 26, 1969 when the jeep was coming from Nath-dwara to Udaipur, it was checked and inspected by the Transport Inspector. The jeep was then fitted with a compressure. The Inspector seized the vehicle on the ground that it was used as a private carrier. The plaintiff should have paid a sum...
Tag this Judgment!Dhan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1985
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)33
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28th August, 1979 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 102/75/14/76. The prosecution case unfolded during the trial is that on 5th July, 1975, PW 1 Babu lodged the FIR at Police Station Hindaun City. In the FIR, it was alleged that Smt. Bhoori has been murdered and it is suspected that Dhan Singh appellant may be the person who committed the murder. Investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer and charge-sheet was submitted before the court of Judicial Magistrate. The case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge. It is alleged that Mst. Bhoori was sleeping in the Chowk of her house in intervening night of 4th and 5th July, 1975.2. On behalf of the prosecution, PW 1 Babu, PW 2 Mst. Tasviri, PW 3 Rameshwar, PW 4 Leelaram, PW 5 Dr. Surajlal, PW 6 Revati Prasad, PW 7 Subuddhi and PW 8 Mishrilal have been examined. The Sessions Judge relied upon the testimony of PW 1 Babu, PW 2 Mst. Tasviri an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »