Rajasthan Court August 1985 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.
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Lalchand Kapoorchand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1985
Reported in: [1986]63STC234(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is an application under Section 15(3A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Act No. 29 of 1954) (for short 'the Act' herein), for requiring the Board of Revenue to state the case and refer the following questions of law arising out of its order dated 9th February, 1981, passed in Special Appeal No. 4/78/RST/Pali.1. Whether, under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, deductions under Section 2(s) can be allowed without producing S.T. 17 forms physically on original or duplicate as envisaged under Sub-rule (7) of Rule 25C?2. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, secondary evidence as produced by the dealer can be taken into consideration if the original and duplicate S.T. 17 forms are lost ?2. The dealer-assessee, M/s. Lalchand Kapoorchand of Sumerpur, District Pali, non-petitioner, sold cotton seeds, which were taxable at the last point at a price of Rs. 8,056 to another registered dealer without charging sales tax from him. T...
Commercial Taxes Officer Special Vs. Lalchand Kapoorchand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN736
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is an application under Section 15(3A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Act No. XXIX of 1954) (for short 'the Act' here in) for requiring the Board of Revenue to state the case and refer the following questions of law arising out of its order dated February 9, 1981 passed in Special Appeal No. 4/78/RST/Pali.(1) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, deductions under Section 2(s) can be allowed without producing S.T. 17 Forms physically on original or duplicate as envisaged under Sub-rule (7) of Rule 25(C) ?(2) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, secondary evidence as produced by the dealer, can be taken into consideration if the original and duplicate ST-17 Forms are lost ?The dealer-assessee M/s Lalchand Kapoorchand of Sumerpur, District Pali non-petitioner sold cotton seeds, which were taxable at the last point at a price of Rs. 8,056/- to another registered dealer without charging sales tax from him. The accoun...
Chandmal Gangabishan Vs. Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1985
Reported in: [1987]66STC360(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This order will dispose of D.B. Sales Tax Case No. 35 of 1980 and Sales Tax Reference No. 13 of 1980 which relate to the period: October 19, 1971 to November 4, 1972 and D.B. Sales Tax Case No. 34 of 1980 and D.B. Sales Tax Reference No. 14 of 1980, relating to the period: November 5, 1972 to October 25, 1973.2. We may briefly notice the facts, which have led to D.B. Sales Tax Reference No. 13 of 1980.3. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer (Anti-Evasion) ('A.C.T.O.'), Bikaner seized books of accounts of the dealer-assessee, M/s. Chandmal Ganga-bishan, which carries on the business of 'bhujiya' and 'papad'. He found the books of accounts incomplete in respect of the purchase of raw materials and quantities of finished products manufactured. It was also detected that certain entries in the books maintained by Shri Hari Ram Chakkiwala with regard to the business of the dealer-assessee did not find place in his (dealer-assessee's) books of accounts. The A.C.T.O. (An...
Commercial Taxes Officer and anr. Vs. Board of Revenue and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1985
Reported in: [1987]65STC440(Raj)
ORDERDwarka Prasad, J.1. The only question which has been raised in this application seeking a reference under Section 15(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which has been treated by us as a revision petition under the amended provisions of the Act, because of the provisions contained in Sub-section (10) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984, is as to whether penalty under Section 16(1)(e) of the Act could be legally levied upon the assessee in the circumstances of the case.2. The assessee, M/s. Rajasthan Roller & Flour Mills Private Ltd., Kota, carried on business of purchase of wheat and manufacture of wheat flour, maida, suji, etc. The assessee was registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Act. During the period November 10, 1969 to October 30, 1970, relating to the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee purchased certain quantity of wheat on payment of sales tax at the full rate of 2 per cent and some ...
Nanhe Khan Vs. Ram Das
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)352
Gopal Kishan Sharma, J.1. An application under Order 22, Rules 9 & 10A, read with Section 151 CPC has been filed by respondent No. 1 Ramdas. In this application it has been mentioned that respondent Ramdas filed a suit for rent and ejectment against Nanhekhan appellant and Kamruddin respondent No. 2. That suit was decreed against Nanhekhan and Kamruddin. Then an appeal was preferred by Nanhekhan and Kamruddin in the court of Additional District Judge, Gangapur City (for short here in after, 'the ADJ'). It is alleged that using the pendency of the first appeal; Kamruddin expired on 16th Jan., 80. No application was filed by either Nanhekhan or anybody else to bring the legal representatives of the deceased Kamruddin on the record. The first appellate court rejected the appeal of Nanhekhan and Kamruddin and maintained the judgment and decree passed by the lower court. The present second appeal has been filed by Nanhekhan and Kamruddin has been shown as proforma respondent No. 2.2. Mr. Ti...
Jayendra Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1985
Reported in: [1986]160ITR866(Raj)
D.P. Gupta, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court:' Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 19,602 calculated on the basis of the law prevailing on April 1, 1969 '2. The assessee was required to file his return of wealth for the assessment year 1966-67 on or before June 30, 1966. The return was, however, filed on October 25, 1971. The assessee tried to explain the delay in filing the return. The Wealth-tax Officer did not accept the explanation furnished by the assessee and held that the delay in filing the return was without reasonable cause and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,02,926 upon the assessee for the delay in filing the return of wealth. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the delay in filing the return up to September 30, 1970, but be...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer (Revisions) and anr. Vs. Arawali As ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1985
Reported in: [1985]60STC349(Raj); 1985(2)WLN16
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. This is an application under Section 15(3A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. XXIX of 1954) (for short 'the RST Act') read with Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act No. LXXIV of 1956) (which will hereinafter for the sake of brevity be referred to as 'the CST Act') for directing the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan ('the Board' herein) to state the case and refer the question of law arising out of its order dated March 26, 1979 passed in Special Appeal No. 6/78/ST/Pali as it failed to dispose of the reference application under Section 15(1) of the RST Act within a period of 180 days. The question of law suggested by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer (Revisions), Ajmer, is as under :Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that no penalty can be imposed under Section 16(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for late filin...
United India Fire and General Insurance Co. and anr. Vs. Mst. Hoondi B ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN336
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. The above two appeals were heard at length and reference was made by this court for consideration of the legal issues, to the larger Bench. The Hon'ble Chief Justice constituted a full bench consisting of three Hon'ble Judges who, after a careful and thoughtful consideration of the various legal issues involved in the case, have held as under:Thus, taking in view the entire case law and the provisions of Section 95 of the Act read with Rule 133 of the Rules following principles can be deduced:(i) in case of a gratuitous passenger going on joy-ride or on his own responsibility, insurance company is not liable;(ii) in case of passengers carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment in any vehicle, the Insurance Company is liable. This would include owner of the goods as well as his employees;(iii) the insurer shall not be liable to cover liability in respect of employees of the insured in respect of the death of 4 or bodily i...
Prem Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)535
Kishan Mal Lodha, J.1. These two appeals under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 arises out of the common judgment dated May 9, 1985 of the learned single Judge, by which the petitioner appellant's two writ petitions : No. 2057/82 and 463/85, were dismissed.2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2057/82 Prem Prakash v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. was filed seeking to quash the order Ex. 2 dated October 12, 1981 of the Collector and District Magistrate Bikaner and Ex. 3 dated April 28, 1982 of the Collector & Distt. Magistrate Bikaner. It may be stated that Ex. 2 is the no objection certificate, issued by the Collector and District Magistrate, Bikaner under the Rajasthan Cinematographs Act and Ex. 3 is the permission letter for raising construction. This was conditioned that before the construction is commenced, respondent No. 4 Jugraj Sethia, who is partner of respondent No. 3, should obtain certificate under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.3. S.B. Civil...
United India Fire and General Insurance Co. and Vs. Hoondi Bai and 6 o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1985
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC485
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. The above two appeals were heard at length and reference was made by this Court for consideration of the legal issues, to the larger Bench. Hon'ble the Chief Justice constituted a full bench consisting of three Hon'ble Judges who, after a careful and thoughtful consideration of the various legal issues involved in Smt. Santara Bai v. S. Prahlad (S.B. Cri. Misc. Appeal No. 111/73 and Ors. on 17-4-1985 in the case, have held as under:Thus, taking in view the entire case law and the provisions of Section 95 of the Act read with Rule 133 of the Rules following principles can be deduced:(i) in case of a gratuitous passenger going on joy-ride or on his own responsibility, insurance company is not liable;(ii) in case of passengers carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment in any vehicle, the Insurance Company is liable. This would include owner of the goods as well as his employees;(iii) the insurer shall not be liable to cove...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »