Rajasthan Court September 2008 Judgments
Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Vs. Sanskrit Comfort System Pvt ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-2008
Reported in: (2008)18VST512(Raj)
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This revision petition under Section 86(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 ('the Act of 1994'), filed by the Revenue on March 29, 2003 against the order dated August 1, 2002 as passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in Appeal No. 1177/1999 is reported to be barred by limitation by two days ; and the petitioner has moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ('the Limitation Act') for condonation of delay that has been opposed on behalf of the non-petitioner as being incompetent.2. Though, this Court is satisfied that on merits this revision petition remains bereft of substance ; and further, the fate of this revision petition remains sealed with the order impugned herein having already been found not calling for interference by this Court while rejecting the cognate revision petition (S. B. Sales Taxes Revision Petition Nos. 584/2005) on February 2, 2006 and, admittedly, the order passed by this Court on February 2, 2006 in rejecting ...
Tag this Judgment!Jodh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1073; 2009(1)WLN6
H.R. Panwar, J.1. These writ petitions involve common question of law and facts and therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, are heard and decided together taking the facts of SBCW No. 3959/208 as a leading case.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these writ petitions are that the petitioners were initially granted Arms Licence for Muzzle Loading Gun (for short the ML Gun' hereinafter) which were issued in favour of the petitioners by the Tehsildar of the area and in the case of the petitioner Jodhsingh by Tehsildar, Srikaranpur. Grant of ML Gun licence by the tehsildar has not been questioned by the respondent State and therefore, to the extent of grant of ML Gun licence there is no infirmity and such grant of ML Gun licence is not under challenge. However, subsequent thereto, the petitioner applied for change of the bore of the gun before the Additional District Collector, Sriganganagar who issued the Outside Licence of NP Bore vide Licence No. 14/200...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Shree Shiva Spinners Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-2008
Reported in: [2009]91SCL51(Raj)
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The applicants Sarva Shri Shankar Lal Bansal and Sita Ram Goyal, filed this application under Rule 9 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959 for issue of directions to convene separate meetings of members, secured and unsecured creditors to consider revised scheme of compromise and arrangement of Shree Shiva Spinners Ltd. (company under liquidation), praying as under:(i) Direct holding of separate meeting of members secured creditor and unsecured creditors of the Company to consider scheme of compromise and Arrangement (Annexure A-19) at the premises of registered office of the company or at such place as may be determined by the Hon'ble Court.(ii) To appoint chairman to preside over the proceedings of the said meetings and to report thereon.(iii) To direct publication of notices in the Daily Statesman (in English published from New Delhi) and Daily Rajasthan Patrika(in Hindi-City Edition, Jaipur) relating to proposed meeting of members, secured creditor and uns...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Malborough Polychem P. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-2008
Reported in: [2009]309ITR43(Raj)
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal of the Revenue has been admitted, vide order dated November 6, 2006, by framing the following substantial question of law:Whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80HH as well as under Section 80-I both in respect of the industrial unit run by it?2. The perusal of the judgment of the learned Tribunal, so far as it relates to this question, shows that the learned Tribunal has decided the appeal by relying upon the judgment of this Court in CIT v. Chokshi Contacts P. Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 587 : [2001] 166 CTR 383 (Raj), and has also relied upon the judgment to the same effect of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in I. T. A. No. 92/99, S.L.P. against which has been dismissed by the hon'ble Supreme Court (see : [2001]247ITR36(SC) ).3. We have gone through the judgment in Chokshi Contacts' case [2001] 251 ITR 587 , and find that, that judgment does fully cover the controversy involved in the present case against the Revenue as decided by the T...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Alias Kalu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1056; RLW2009(3)Raj2366
ORDERMahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. Both the criminal revision petitions arise out of common order, as also common facts and law, hence the same are being decided by this common order.2. The accused petitioners by filing instant criminal revision petitions have challenged the order dated 2-12-2006 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar (for short 'trial Court') passed in Criminal Case No. 87/2005 by which it framed charges against them for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC.3. In brief facts of the case are that Smt. Kamla submitted a written report on 16-8-2004 to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Laxmangarh District Sikar mentioning therein that on 7-8-2004 her daughter Savita had died on suspicious condition, upon which a report of suicide was registered but she is not believing that her daughter had died due to suicide. She further stated in the report that the neighbours of the locality told her that her daughter had burnt but that was not so ser...
Tag this Judgment!Manglam Yarn Agencies Vs. Asstt. Commr., Commercial Taxes
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-2008
Reported in: (2009)12VatReporter5
Vineet Kothari, J.1. The question of law which was framed for consideration in the present revision petition filed by the assessee is as under:Whether the exemption notfn No. 1490 dated 17.9.2001 (SO No. 183) issued under Section 15, RST Act exempting sale or purchase of all kinds of man-made fibers and man-made yarn to which the rate of tax in respect thereof exceeds 2% also covered the turn-over tax imposed on the respondent-assessee under Section 13A of the RST Act, 1994 or the said exemption is limited to the individual sale or purchase of the specified commodities in the said notfn.2. The Revenue Authorities, all three, concurrently held against the petitioner-assessee that the notfn dated 17.9.2001 did not cover the turnover tax payable by the assessee Under Section 13A of the RST Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. Before coming to the controversy and case laws, it is considered expedient to reproduce provisions of the Act and exemption notification and rate noti...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner Vs. Jyoti Cotton Industries
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-2008
Reported in: (2009)11VatReporter138
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel.2. Both the revision petitions are directed against the concurrent findings of two appellate authorities below in favour of assessee that the goods namely Mustard Oil sold by the assessee was covered by the notfn S.0.282 dated 7.6.1996 (sic dated 15.3.1996 as corrected by corrigendum dated 7.6.1996) [S. No. 1051 of Part II of the book by J.K. Jain & Prasoon Jain] prescribing rate of tax @ 2% on the inter-State sales made by the assessee subject to fulfillment of condition of furnishing of the declaration in form 'D' under the said notfn.3. Both the authorities have held that since the condition of the notfn was satisfied by the respondent-assessee, the respondent assessee was entitled to concessional rate of tax @ 2% under the said notfn.4. Learned Counsel for the Revenue, however, submits that since the other notfn, serial No. 1026, S.O.124 dated 28.9.1995[S. No. l026] prescribing 3% rate of tax generally covering all the commodities was also...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sirohi S.B.V. Bank Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-2008
Reported in: [2009]176TAXMAN404(Raj)
ORDER1. These three appeals, arise in identical circumstances, and involved, common question of law, though arise from different orders of the ITAT. The appeal Nos. 56/07 and 105/06, arise out of the common judgment of the Tribunal, dated 25-1-2006, for the assessment years 1998-99 and 2000-01. whereas appeal No. 31 /2007, arise out of the judgment of the Tribunal, dated 9-6-2006 relating to the assessment year 2003-04. All the three appeals relate to same assessee. These appeals were admitted on different dates, framing substantial question of law, though in different language, however the substantial question of law, involved in all the three appeals is as under:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of interest earned by the respondent Bank on various loans extended to its employees from deposit of P.F. and Housing loan is eligible to be exempted under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, 1961.2. The necessary facts are that the assessee is a co-operative society...
Tag this Judgment!Girdhari Maheshwari and anr. Vs. Nil
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Raj38; 2009(1)WLN373
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The facts in brief as pleaded by both the appellants are that both the appellants fell in love with each other and without the consent of their parent entered into wedlock on 26-8-2006 by following the rites of Arya Samaj. They could not live together for a single day (or night) as immediately after their marriage, the fact of marriage of the appellants came in knowledge of their parents and they did not accept this marriage. Because of above fact situation only, the appellants stated that the 'appellants do not want to live together nor they want to continue this marriage relation because they contacted the marriage because of their lack of understanding'. They further pleaded that not only they did not live together for a single day (or night) after marriage, but they did not meet with each other for a single moment after the marriage. With these averments, the appellants, husband and wife filed present petition before the Family Court under Section 138 of the Hin...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhema and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2494
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant insurance company can be held liable to reimburse the insured for the claim of the claimants as awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur, Camp Sagwara in M.A.C.T. Claim No. 132 of 2005 (254 of 2003) vide award dated 22.9.2006. The Tribunal held that the driver of the vehicle was holding a valid driving licence of light motor vehicle. Admittedly, there was no endorsement authorising him to drive transport vehicle and the accident was caused by him while driving a transport vehicle.3. According to learned Counsel for the appellant insurance company, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir : 2008 ACJ 2161 (SC) and another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal : 2008 ACJ 627 (SC), the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »