Rajasthan Court October 2002 Judgments
Dinesh Kumar Vs. Jai NaraIn Vyas University and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)WLC705; 2003(2)WLN487
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 24.9.2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to give admission to the petitioner in M.Sc. (Chemistry) Previous for the Session 2002-2003.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:The petitioner, who is member of Scheduled Caste category, completed his B.Sc. degree from Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer as regular student of S.B. Kothari Government College, Jaisalmer in the year 2002 and obtained 1247 marks out of 2025 marks, which is 62 per cent marks. Thus, the petitioner secured first division in B.Sc. and a copy of the mark-sheet of B.Sc. is marked as Annex. 1.The respondent No. 1 Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur (for short 'the University') has issued the prospects for admission in various classes for the Session of 2...
Tag this Judgment!Wolkem (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Raj)382; [2003]259ITR430(Raj); 2003(2)WLN200
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, at the instance of the assessee, Wolkem Pvt. Ltd., has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the excise duty collection was a trading receipt in the year of receipt and hence excise duty refund of Rs. 1,45,752 was liable to tax in the hands of the assessee under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The background facts relevant for answering the instant reference, briefly stated are as follows :The assessee-company filed its return for the assessment year 1986-87 declaring total income of Rs. 11,34,310 derived from the business of minerals known as calcite and wollastonite. In response to the notice under Section 143(2)/142(1) the representative of the assessee-company produced the books of account which reveal that during the assessment proceedings excise duty refundable to the a...
Tag this Judgment!Tapan Purohit and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj124; 2003(1)WLC645; 2003(1)WLN537
Mathur, J.1. In this group of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, constitutional validity of second proviso to Section 4(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 195V, has been challenged. 2. The Writ Petition No. 2529/2002 is quite comprehensive, as such, it is regarded as representative of the contentions urged in support of the challenge. Petitioner purchased a motor vehicle being Maruti Car. hereinafter referred to as 'the vehicle', bearing Registration No. RJ-22/C-2866 from Smt. Laxmi Kanwar, hereinafter referred to as 'the vendor' on 9-11-2001 after payment, of consideration agreed for. The vendor gotthe vehicle registered in her name on 28-6-2001 after completing necessary formalities in this regard and after payment of 'One Time Tax' (in short 'the OTT') as per the provisions of the Act. The payment of OTT was accepted by the transport Authorities. The entry for payment of the OTT of Rs. 5,440/- w...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ambika Gwar Gum Mills
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-2002
Reported in: [2004]266ITR446(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for seeking direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal/Jaipur, to refer the following question of law for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that any action taken by the Assessing Officer under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the basis of an audit report does tantamount to change of opinion and, therefore, action under Section 147(b) was not justified ?'2. The facts in brief are stated as follows : The assessee partnership firm consisting of three partners and one minor, was dissolved on October 5, 1980, and the business was taken over by one Madan Lal Jain and a new firm was constituted with effect from October 6, 1980. The return was filed by the asses-see-firm for two different periods ; firstly, for the period July 1, 1980, t...
Tag this Judgment!Mumal Marbles Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-2002
Reported in: [2003]130STC160(Raj); 2003(1)WLC665; 2003(2)WLN523
N.N. Mathur, J.1. These three special appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge relegating the petitioner to alternate remedy under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.2. The petitioner-company is carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling of marble slabs and tiles. It was granted benefit of deferment of tax under the Deferment Scheme of 1989 with effect from November 17, 1992. The State Government under the notification dated December 1, 1986 permitted shifting of point of tax. The relevant notification is extracted as follows :'S.No.647 : F-5(118) FD / Gr. IV/71, dated December 1, 1986.S.O. 131.--In pursuance of Rules 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955, and in supersession of Finance Department Notification No. F.5(40)FDRT/63-2, dated March 23, 1963 (S. No. 53), as amended from time to time, the State Government hereby directs that with immediate effect the tax payable under Section 5 of the Act on the sale of goods manufactured in Rajasthan by a...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish Rai Mittal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)WLC199; 2003(2)WLN75
N.N. Mathur, J.1. In all these three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising from the judgments of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 27.9.1996 and 18.6.1997 the issue involved is whether the provisions in the Act for determination of tax include re-determination and/or whether such determination can be done as rectification of an error apparent on the face of the record.2. The writ petitioner Jagdish Rai Mittal held a non-temporary stage carriage permit for the vehicle No. RNC 628 for Hanumangarh to Kheladak route. The scope of the route permit was for five stage carriages with three return services and two shuttle service from Hanumangarh to Ranjeetpura. With effect from 15.1.1990 return services were enhanced to five return services. The District Transport Officer, Sri Ganganagar, hereinafter referred to as 'the A.O.', made the assessment of the subject vehicle for the year ending June, 1989 and issued a certificate on 8.3.1991 in favour of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kadir Ahmad Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)WLN225
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 18.5.2000 whereby the petitioner a Forest Guard was retired compulsorily under Rule 244(2) of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 read with Rule 53(1) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996.2. In the return to the writ petition, the respondents have made attempt to justify the impugned order of retirement by giving details of punishment awarded to the petitioner thus:(i) The D.F.O., Kota stopped two annual grade increments by cumulative effect vide order dated 15.5.1986;(ii) The D.F.O., Bundi stopped one annual grade increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 30.3.1999;(iii) The D.F.O., Kota had imposed the penalty of censure vide order dated 15.10.1987;(iv) The D.F.O., Bundi' stopped two annual grade increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 18.8.1990;(v) The details of remarks made in annual confidential Reports of the petitioner are as under:Year Result______ ________1982-83 Average...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Wolkem India Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Raj)301
N.N. Mathur, J.These three income-tax reference applications under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred-to as 'the Act') pertain to the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96, respectively. The Tribunal, Jaipur by a common order dated 19-4-1999, refused to refer the questions set out in the application under section 256 for the opinion of this court. Hence, the revenue by these three applications seeks direction to the Tribunal to make a reference on the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in :(a) holding that sales-tax, octroi and excise duty on local sales should not form part of 'total turnover' for the purpose of deduction under section 80HHC, ignoring the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Chowranghee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd. v. CIT : [1973]87ITR542(SC) and Sinclair Murray & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT : [1974]97ITR615(SC) .(b) directing to allow depreciation on th...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Ambika Gwar Gum Mills
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Raj)104
N. N. Mathur, J.This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for seeking direction to the. Income Tax Tribunal, Jaipur to refer the following question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the, facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that any action taken by the assessing officer under section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of an audit report does tantamount to change of opinion and, therefore, action under section 147(b) was not justified?'2. The facts in brief are stated as follows: The assessee partnership firm consisting of three partners and one minor, was dissolved on 5-10-1980, and the business was taken over by one Madan Lal Jain and a new firm was constituted with effect from 6-10-1980. The return was filed by the assessee-firm for two different periods; firstly for the period 1-7-1980, to 5-10-1980, declaring income of Rs. 1,93,330 and se...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dhanwanti and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC692; 2004ACJ1217; 2003(2)WLC686
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The above-mentioned two appeals are being decided by this common judgment as in both of them, common questions of law and facts are involved and both have been preferred against the same judgment and award dated 30.10.1996 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banner.S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 456 of 1997:2. It arises in the following circumstances:On 31.3.1995, a bus bearing No. RJ 14-P 2264 belonging to the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation'), was going towards Balotra to Sanchore and that bus was being driven by Anoop Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased' and the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in Appeal No. 190 of 1997 are his LRs) and the conductor of that bus was Jagdish (hereinafter referred to 'as deceased' and the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 7 in this appeal are his LRs) and at that time, at about 2.30 p.m., another bus bearing No. JP 14-P 2212 belonging to the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »