Rajasthan Court December 1999 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.
Arvind Kumar JaIn Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1999
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR629]; (2001)IIILLJ1272Raj; 2000WLC(Raj)UC369
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The petitioner, while working as clerk-cum-cashier incharge, Punjab National Bank, Dhamani Market, Jaipur, was put under suspension vide order dated November 17, 1986. Thereafter, charge sheet was served on the petitioner on February 16, 1987. Since no reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The petitioner, however submitted his written statement before the Enquiry Officer. After receiving the enquiry report, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated November 24, 1988 and a copy of the enquiry report was also enclosed therewith. Thereafter, in absence of any reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated December 27, 1988, petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority against the above order of dismissal however, the appeal was also dismissed vide order dated July 13, 1989. The order of punishment as well as the order of appellate authority are unde...
Kedia Colonizers Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1999
Reported in: [2000]245ITR675(Raj)
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated December 1, 1999, issued under Section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by which the petitioner has been asked to file his reply/explanation with supporting' evidence. The notice has been challenged mainly on the ground that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had already deleted most of the amounts referred to in the notice under challenge and further that the appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal filed by the Revenue is still pending before the Appellate Tribunal (sic). Some malafides have also been alleged against the assessing' authority who has issued the notice.2. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the entire material on record and also the provisions of the Act of 1961.3. Since only a notice has been issued and the petitioner has been asked to file his reply/explanation, in my opinion, no interference is called for by this court under its writ jurisdic...
Kedia Colonizers Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Raj)481
ORDERAshok Parihar, J.Petitioner has challenged the notice dated 1-12-1999, issued under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by which the petitioner has been asked to file his reply/explanation with supporting evidence. The notice has been challenged mainly on the ground that Tribunal had already deleted most of the amounts referred in the notice under challenge and further that appeal against the order of Tribunal filed by the Revenue is still pending before the Tribunal. Some mala fides have also been alleged against the assessing authority who has issued the notice.2. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the entire material on record and also the provisions of the Act of 1961.3. Since only a notice has been issued and the petitioner has been asked to file his reply/explanation, in my opinion, no interference is called for by this Court, under its writ jurisdiction in the present matter, moreso, when after issuing notice under section 142, a...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Shakti Scoring and Milling Mill ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1999
Reported in: [2001]121STC36(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This sales tax revision petition was filed by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer relates to the period of assessment ending on March 31, 1987 and March 31, 1988 respectively.2. The assessee is engaged in the business of doing job-work. In the original assessment the price of the packing material, which was used by the assessee, which was not purchased by the assessee as a tax-paid goods, was not brought to the tax under the provision of the Act, therefore the reassessment proceedings were initiated. As a result of reassessment for the period ending on March 31, 1987, the packing material which was purchased without payment of tax was valued at Rs. 1,44,413 and for the period ending on March 31, 1988 it was valued at Rs. 1,38,875, totalling Rs. 2,83,288 which had been used in doing the job-work but was not separately shown and for which no separate amount as price was charged. The assessing officer levied sales tax on the said amount by treating it to be sale of p...
A.C.T.O. Vs. Shakti Scoring and Milling Mills
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1999
Reported in: [2001]121STC24(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. These sales tax revision petitions in respect of same respondent-assessee have arisen in identical facts and circumstances and raises common question of law, which are being heard and decided together.2. Sales Tax Revision No. 464 of 1999 relates to assessment period ending on March 31, 1990 and Sales Tax Revision No. 463 of 1999 relates to assessment period ending on March 31, 1989. The issues relate to exigibility of packing material used by the assessee in connection with job-work of manufacturing carpet woollen mark by the assessee. For the assessment year 1988-89 the total amount received for job-work as disclosed by the assessee was Rs. 38,950. In this turnover of job-work valuation of packing material was not separately shown. In original assessment order dated February 20, 1992 the total turnover was held as not taxable. However, as the assessing authority held the belief that turnover disclosed by the assessee did not include the price of packing material u...
Chandresh Singhvi Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1632; 2000(1)WLC759
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been preferred by an advocate who practises on Commercial Taxes side at Sriganganagar. M/s. Tuli Industries is his client. Mr. Ajay Kumar Tuli filed a return on behalf of firm for the year 1993-94 on 14-6-1996 showing no sale in the concerned year. An affidavit was filed to this effect. For the year 1994-95 false statements were submitted and when inquired the taxable sale for the year 1994-95 was Rs. 2,81,641/-. The matter was inquired by the Commercial Taxes Department and it revealed that the sale for the financial year was Rs. 12,963/- on which the firm was liable for tax.2. A complaint was filed by Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer (Anti-Evasion) Shri Panna Lal Meghwal against M/s. Tuli Industries through its partner Ajay Kumar Tuli in which petitioner-Chandresh Singhvi advocate was arrayed as an accused. The allegation against him is that he aided and abetted the offence under Section 71(b), (c) and (i) of the R...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Meharsingh Harbans Singh Cotton ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN400
Rajesh Balia, J.1. These four revision petitions involve common questions of law and, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by a common order.2. All these four revisions are directed against the same assessee i.e. M/s Mehar Singh Harbans Singh Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory Gajsinghpur and relates to the assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 respectively.3. The assessee is a dealer in agricultural produce including food grains and oil seeds and is also engaged in the business of ginning and pressing the cotton. Initially, the Assessing Officer has accepted the assessee's return for Nil taxability turn over, which consisted of ST paid Wheat, Muster seeds and Bardana. However, the assessments were re-opened on believing that the assessee manufactures the cotton bails by ginning and pressing and in that manufacture, it used the packing material but he did not pay the sales tax on such packing materials as provided in the last proviso to Section 5(...
Bala Bux Vs. Bhajan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN458
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Civil suit instituted by the plaintiff appellant seeking partition and possession of the property in question was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge Alwar on November 11, 1974. Against this decree and judgment that the present action for filing the appeal has been resorted to by the plaintiff. The parties shall be referred hereinafter in the same manner as they were arrayed in the suit.2. The plaintiff is the nephew of the defendant and Buddhi Lal was their common ancestor. In the first inning of the litigation the plaintiff had filed two suits in 1942, one for recovery of the sum which remained outstanding against the defendant and another for possession of the immovable properties under the terms of the arbitration award dated May 12. 1941. The District Judge Alwar vide its judgment and decree dated May 25, 1955 decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 5200/-but dismissed the second suit. The regular first appeal preferred by the plaintiff was dism...
Rajveer Singh Etc. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj272; 2000(3)WLC209
Mathur, J.1. By these two writ petitions, constitutional validity of following portion of Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1988', has been challenged :'207. Power to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration permit, etc., --(1) 'Any police officer or' and words 'seize and detain the vehicle, in the prescribed manner and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle: Provided that where any such officer or person has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 or without the permit required by Sub-section (1) of Section 66, he may instead of seizing the vehicle ..........' 2. In short. Section 207 of the Act of 1988 empowers a police officer or an officer authorised by the State Government to seize a motor vehicle, if he has a reason to believe that the vehicle is being driven with...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Darshan Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN110
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This is a murder reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, dated 17.5.1999 in accordance with the provisions of Section 366 Cr. P.C. for confirmation of death sentence, awarded to accused Darshan Singh, having held him guilty of committing murder of Tota Singh and convicting him of offence u/Section 302 IPC. The accused Darshan Singh has also challenged the conviction and sentence by way of filing an appeal through jail, which has been registered as D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 294/1999 'Darshan Singh v. State of Rajasthan'.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20th March, 1998, PW 1 Gurdeep Singh lodged an oral F.I.R. at Police Station Sadul Shahar at 9.15 P.M. stating inter alia that there was dispute between his father P.W. 3 Mohan Singh and uncle Darshan Singh (accused) with respect to distribution of the land. In order to resolve the dispute, his father had approached his maternal grand father Tota Singh (deceased) residing ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »