Rajasthan Court July 2002 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.
Lakshmi Cement Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)595
Bhagwati Prasad, J.The petitioner is a company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling portland cement. The company is a registered dealer under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the RST Act) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as CST Act). 2. It is claimed by the petitioner that the Government of Rajasthan issued Notification No. F4 (72) FDGR.IV/81-18, dated 6-5-1986. By this notification, partial exemption was granted from the tax payable in respect of inter-State sales in the manner and subject to the conditions mentioned in the notification.The petitioner claims that this partial exemption from tax payable on inter-State sales is given to reduce branch/stock transfers on which no tax is leviable under CST Act.The petitioner claims that the present writ petition is not related to quantum of exemption available under the notification. The dispute circles around the sale of levy cement. The case of the petitioner is th...
Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR126(Raj)
1. These two appeals are directed against the order dated November 24, 2000, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. These appeals relate to the assessment years 1986-87 and 1988-89. The common issue involved in these appeals is with regard to penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and therefore, the appeals are being decided by this common order.2. The appellant, Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd., is a co-operative society governed by the provisions of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. As per the requirement of Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee should get its accounts of the previous year audited by an auditor before the specified date. For the assessment year 1986-87, the specified date was June 30, 1986, and for the assessment year 1988-89, the specified date was June 30, 1988. Admittedly, the assessee had not got its accounts audited before the aforesaid specified dates, and therefore, the proceedin...
School Managing Committee Shri JaIn Adarsh Vidya Niketan Sr. School Vs ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1996a; 2003(1)WLC160
Sunil Kumar Garg, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the impugned order dtd. 18.7.98 (Annex.10) passed by the Learned Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in appeal No. 319/96 (S. Prabhakaran v. School Managing Committee Shri Jain Adarsh Vidya Niketan Sr. School, Nokha) by which the learned Tribunal set aside the order dtd. 31.7.96 whereby the services of the respondent No. 2 were terminated orally and respondents No. 2 was ordered to be reinstated with 50% back wages, be set aside.2. It arises in the following circumstances:i) That the petitioner i.e. School Managing Committee Shri Adarsh Vidya Niketan Sr, School, Nokha is a non-government educational institution recognised by the State Government and affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi situated at Nokha in Dist. Bikaner. ii) that r...
Bhawani Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1755; 2002(5)WLN269
Balia, J.1. The common issue raised in all these cases is the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Regulation of Appointments to Public Services Rationalisation of Staff Act, 1999 (hereinafter called Act of 1999). Various provisions of the Act more particularly Sections 2(v), 9, 11 and 19 of the Act are being assailed as ultra vires. Consequent relief has been asked in each petition, as we shall notice later on, to quash the directions issued and order passed in pursuance there of under the provisions of Act of 1999.Brief View of Impugned Provisions 2. As per its preamble, the Rajasthan State Legislature enacted the Rajasthan (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff) Act, 1999 (hereinafter called, 'the Act of 1999') to regulate appointments in the public service and prohibit irregular appointments in offices and establishments under the control of the State Government, local authorities, public corporations and Universities etc. 3. In brief, the s...
Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Raj)622
By the CourtThese two appeals are directed against the order dated 24-11-2000, passed by the Tribunal, Jaipur. These appeals relate to the assessment years 1986-87 and 1988-89. The common issue involved in these appeals is with regard to penalty imposed under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore, the appeals are being decided by this common order.2. The appellant Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. is a co-operative society governed by the provisions of Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, As per the requirement of section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee should get his accounts of previous year audited by an auditor before the specified date. For the assessment year 1986-87 the specified date was 30-7-1986, and for the assessment year 1988-89 the specified date was 30-6-1988. Admittedly, the assessee had not got its accounts audited before the aforesaid specified dates, therefore, the proceedings for imposing penalty under section 271B was ...
Indian Woollen Carpet Factory Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR658(Raj)
Y.R. Meena, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated July 19, 2000. The appeal has been admitted in terms of the following questions :'1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal can make out a new case under Section 68 of the Act treating credit balance in the account of the appellant and making additions accordingly without there being any ground in the appeal ?2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding purchase as bogus on the basis of incomplete enquiry report in which the addresses of the purchasers were found to be correct and only because they were not available due to their nomadic characteristic no further efforts were made by the enquiry officer to trace the sellers and enquire about the fact of purchase ?3. Whether the order of addition passed by respondent No. 3 is vitiated because the principles of natural justice were not followed ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1982-83. In the return the assessee declared a total income of Rs. 1,35,653. The assesse...
Ramesh Chandra Vs. Sarpanch
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj2044; 2002(4)WLC341; 2002(5)WLN243
Chauhan, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 8.7.2002 by which the application under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') of the non-petitioner has been allowed.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the non-petitioner filed an application under Order 11 Rule 12 of the Code for discovery of document i.e. sale-deed dated 11.9.1993 which has been allowed on the ground that the petitioner is in possession of the said document though it has been submitted before the Court below that the document is in possession of the petitioner but was not traceable as at the time of white-wash of the house, it had been put by the ladies of the house at some other place. The Court below has directed the petitioner to produce the said sale-deed dated 11.9.1993, Hence, this revision petition.3. Shri Samdaria, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that undoubtedly there is no material irregulari...
Mohan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1891; RLW2003(4)Raj2432
Goyal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.5.1999 in Sessions Case No. 52/1998, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg District Bharatpur held the accused appellant Mohan guilty for offence under Sections 363, 366 & 376 1PC and sentenced him t one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default 15 days rigorous imprisonment, five years rigorous imprisonment and a sum of Rs. 5000/- as fine, in default one month rigorous imprisonment and 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default one year rigorous imprisonment under Sections 363, 366 & 376 IPC respectively. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that PW-4 Lalchand lodged a written report Ex.P.3 at Police Station Kotwali, Deeg, at 10.15 a.m. on 11.2.1998 with the averments that his niece Urmila aged. 16/18 years was kidnapped today by some unknown person and the informant has got suspicion upon Mohan. Formal...
Ajay Kumar and ors. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC782; 2002(5)WLN329
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This S.B. Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the impugned order dated 12.12.2001 whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 (Fast Trek) Jaipur City, Jaipur ordered to frame charges under Section 307, 325 and 323, IPC against the three accused petitioners.2. The relevant facts in brief are that one FIR was lodged at concerned police station with the averments that at about 8.30 P.M. on 27.6.2000, a quarrel took place between Kishan Chand, gateman of the cinema Hall and three accused persons. Accused Surendra and Suresh started giving fist blows while accused Ajay Kumar gave Danda blow upon the head saying that, he would be killed.3. After investigation, challan under said sections was filed and the learned trial Judge ordered to frame charges as stated above.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that scuffle took place for drinking water and there is no such injury so as to reflect any intention of the accused-petitioners and, therefore...
Shanti Lal JaIn Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN721(Raj)
ORDERBy this application filed under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the assessee-petitioner prayed that the Tribunal be directed to refer the following questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether the order of the ITAT regarding the correctness of books of account is an order made without due consideration of the evidence and relevant material on record ?2. Whether the ITAT was wrong in passing an order about the books of account though there being no material or evidence in its favour and that whether the findings of the Tribunal are not contrary to the evidence ?3 Whether the Tribunal's finding about the gold ornaments is not contrary to the evidence and, therefore, is perverse ?4. Whether there is any nexus between the conclusion of the Tribunal and the primary facts placed by the applicant but not looked into by the Tribunal ?' 2. None appeared for the applicant. Mr. Singhi submits that Mr. Paras Kuhad has said that he has...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »