Rajasthan Court April 2000 Judgments
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Meera Stones (P) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC619; 2000(2)WLN235
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment dt. 24.9.1998 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer whereby the Tax Board, while allowing the appeal of M/s. Meera Stones Pvt. Ltd. for grant of 'Eligibility Certificate' under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1987 as Diversification, has set aside the orders dt. 11.6,1997 and 5.12.1997 passed by the District Level Screening Committee.2. The respondent-assessee has established an industrial unit for manufacturing of Marmo Tiles in 1988 at Chittorgarh and for which he was issued 'Eligibility Certificate' as new industrial unit under aforesaid scheme. On 23.1.1997 when the said Unit installed Marble Gangsaw and from which started production of Marbles Slabs also used as building material albeit for different purposes he made an application under Clause 2(g) of the scheme for grant of Eligibility Certificate on this diversification. Stating that he has spent more than 25% of the existing value of fixed assets of...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Triveni Oil Field Services Ltd. Vs. C.T.O.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC725; 2002(1)WLN501
ORDERBalia, J.1. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 21.7.1997 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer.(2). The brief facts of the case are: that the petitioner is a person who holds certificate of registration under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 as also the CentralSales Tax Act, 1956. The business of the assessee has been described in the Certificate of registration as 'Execution of Work Contract and Drilling of Wells of Oil India Limited'. The petitioner executes the work contracts for Oil India Limited in excavating crude oil by using drilling machines. In his certificate of registration, the goods are described for the purpose of sub-S. (1) and (3) of Sec. 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, and it is mentioned that the sale of those goods in the course of inter state trade to the dealer shall be taxable at the rate specified in that sub-Sec. subject to the provisions of sub-s. (1) of the Sec. 8 of the Act. The column for re-sale has been filled by Nil. The col...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Shanker and anr. Vs. Chaturbhuj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj333
N.P. Gupta, J.1. By this appeal, the defendants seek to assail the concurrent judgments of the two learned Courts below, decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for eviction from the suit shop, on the ground of subletting, so also on the ground of the suit premises having become unsafe for human habitation.2. The first contention of the learned counsel is that there is no pleading about subletting and, thus, even without there being any pleading, the learned Courts below have decreed the suit on the basis of subletting. Another contention is that the reliance on Exs. 4 and 5 is wholly contrary to law as these are the statements of the two appellants given on some criminal case which have not been proved, apart from the fact that even from those statements, no subletting is proved. The next submission is that the appellant No. 1 Lal Shanker as DW-1 has deposed that the defendant No. 2 Sumer Mal is not in possession of the shop and this evidence has not been controverted. According to the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Mansoori Bros and ors. Vs. Chhotu Khan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ746Raj
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. All these writ petitions have been filed against the impugned Award of the Labour Court dated May 14, 1998, by which the claim of the workmen had been accepted holding that the services of the workmen had been terminated without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'), but in lieu of reinstatement, certain amount of compensation has been granted to the workmen. 2. Cross writ petitions have been filed by the employer being aggrieved of the Award of compensation and by the workmen for not awarding reinstatement. As the employer is the same, facts are also identical and the Awards have also been made on similar line, all these petitions are disposed of by the common Judgment and for the same, the facts of Writ Petition No. 2623/1998 are being considered. 3. In the said case, the workman was employed in July, 1979 and he worked up to November, 1991 and it was alleged that his services were ter...
Tag this Judgment!Cto Vs. Bhartiya Ispat Udhyog
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN7
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Pali has filed this revision aggrieved with the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer dated 30th May, 1997 allowing the appeal of the respondent.3. The respondent which is a small scale industry engaged in manufacture of iron bars, angles and channels etc., made an application on 6.3.1995 before the District Level Screening Committee for grant of eligibility certificate for an expansion project. It has claimed the eligible fixed capital investment for computing the benefit of incentives available. The District Level Screening Committee (DLSC) held the unit to be an eligible expansion unit to avail incentive under the scheme but quantified the eligible fixed capital investment at Rs. 15,58,528. according to which investment in new building was taken at Rs. 4,89,075, in new plant and machinery qualified investment was taken at Rs. 8,22,945 and installation expenditure at Rs. 2,46,508, ...
Tag this Judgment!Harjeet Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN256
S.C. Mital, J.1. Heard, Perused the case diary copy of challan papers made available for perusal. This is bail application under Section 439 Cr. P.C. and the accusation against the accused-applicant is for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C.2. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application on the ground that seven cases are pending against the petitioner. List of the pending cases have been given in the order of rejection of bail dated 10.3.2000 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 2 Sriganganagar. It is submitted that the petitioner committed theft of motor-cycle and also then committed offence under Section 543 Excise Act. Therefore in such circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail otherwise, he is likely to commit offence again. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the pendency of the case is not a sufficient ground and the petitioner may be released on bail of heavy because he has already remained in custody for about two months.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›