Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(4)WLN238
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. These nine (sic ten ?) appeals arise out of the proceedings which have a chequered history. All the respondents in these appeals claim to be admitted as tenants on the agricultural land situated in the erstwhile Jagir of Chhatargarh in the erstwhile State of Bikaner, now in the Bikaner district. The lands-fall within the area irrigated by the Rajasthan Canal (now known as Indira Gandhi Canal). The Jagir of Chhatargarh was resumed under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, on 23rd of August, 1954. It was the case of the respondents that they were regularly paying the rent to the erstwhile Jagirdars and, thereafter, they have paid the rent to the State Government. According to them, after the resumption of Chhatargarh Jagir, they became tenants of the State Government by operation of the provisions of Section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1952') and consequently the Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2001]121STC102(Raj); 2001(4)WLC710
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This revision under Section 86(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 is directed against the order dated June 9, 1997 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, whereby the Tax Board has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee and set aside the order dated April 12, 1993 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur.2. The brief facts leading to this revision are : that the respondent-assessee who is a dealer of I.V. sets [blood donor sets], moved an application under Section 12-A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act') before the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur for determination of the following question :'That the I.V. sets (blood donor sets) made of plastic is whether surgical goods or medicines because the Government of India and Government of Rajasthan has declared the I.V. sets as medicines vide Notification No. X-11014/8/88 DMS/PF a photocopy of said notification is attached in dup...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001(4)WLC101; 2001(3)WLN98
ORDERBalia, J.(1). Heard learned counsel for the parties.(2). The petitioner Company engaged in the business of tyre retreading and incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, has challenged the notice An-nexure-7 dated 11.2.99 issued u/Sec. 29 of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 for the period 1996-97 to be governed by Ihe provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 calling upon the assessee to show the details of the purchase made by him of the raw-materials whether within the State of Rajasthan or in the course of inter-State trade and commerce from outside State of Rajasthan because he intends to include cost incurred by the assessee on manufacturing the tread rubber by one of its units before it is handed over to another unit of it for utilising in re-treading of the tyres for doing job work.(3). These notices are Annexure 6 and 7 appended to the writ petition. The assessee has filed Ihe writ petition before the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal challenging the said nolices on n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2003(96)FLR39]; RLW2003(2)Raj1225; 2002(4)WLC106; 2002(5)WLN595
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by Single Judge dated 10.9.2001 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 154/2001 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 155/2001, which arose under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 in respect of an order passed by E.S.I. Court on an application made by the Board.3. In these two appeals, by notification dated 14th March, 1985 issued by the Central Government the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the E.S.I. Act'), has been extended to Hanumangarh Junction and Hanumangarh Town. As a result of the said notification E.S.I. Scheme became applicable and operative in the aforesaid areas w.e.f. 16.3.85.4. After the extension of the provisions of the Act to the area of Hanumangarh Town and Hanumangarh Junction, the Inspector of the E.S.I. Corporation, inspected the premises of the Assistant Engineer R.S.E.B. (O & M), Hanumangarh Town, in the presence of Shri Gurjeet Singh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1971(4)WLN543
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. These four special appeals have been filed by the leave of a learned Single Judge against his judgment dated April 18, 1966, by which he decided 9 second appeals. These 9 second appeals arose out of 5 suits Nos. 75 of 57, 94 and 157 of 1960 and 20 and 200 of 1962 of the Court of Munsif, Ganganagar. All the 5 suits were decreed by the trial court. In appeal suit No. 75 of 1957 was dismissed by Shri Krishna Nand, the then District Judge of Ganganagar by his judgment dated March 2, 1959. The appeals in the remaining 4 suits were dismissed by Shri Sardar Singh, the then District Judge of Ganganagar by his judgment dated 30-1-1962. The result of the judgment of the learned Single Judge is to decree all the 5 suits.2. Special Appeal No. 21 of 1966 arises out of suit No. 157 of 1960 which was instituted by Santlal. Special appeals Nos. 20 of 1966 and 32 of 1966 arise out of suit No. 75 of 1957 which was filed by Ladu Ram. Special Appeal No. 29 of 1966 arises out of suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(4)Raj2183; 2003(3)WLC208
Tatia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objection that the impugned order Ex.P.10 dated 26.2.2003 by which petitioner's transfer order dated 20.2.2003 was cancelled can be challenged by filing appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and, therefore, when the statutory alternate remedy is available then the writ petition of the petitioner is not maintainable and here in this case, there exists no reason for exercising discretion to entertain the writ petition of the petitioner and there appears to be no reason for bye passing the statutory remedy.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that petitioner, who was initially appointed on the post of Overseer was appointed by the Municipal Board, who is the competent authority to appoint the Overseer in the Municipal Board. The Section 308 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 also provides for appointment of engineers and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(4)Raj2890
N.P. Gupta, J.1. The defendant has filed second appeal in a suit for eviction filed on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity, default in payment of rent and subletting/parting with possession of part of the rented premises.2. The learned trial Court found the question of default in favour of the plaintiff and giving benefit of Section 13(6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (No. XVII 1950), hereafter to be referred to as 'the Act', the suit was not decreed on that count. Regarding the other two grounds, being reasonable and bonafide necessity, being covered by issues No. 5, and 11, and subletting/parting with possession being covered by issue No. 4, were decided against the plaintiff, and thus, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 6.3.79. In appeal, learned District Judge, vide impugned judgment reversed the finding of the learned trial Court on issue No. 4, and held, that the defendant has allowed Tulsi Das to sit on the Chabutari,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2001]121STC311(Raj); 2001(4)WLC115; 2000(3)WLN445
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. In these writ petitions, since common questions of law are involved and, therefore, we deem it proper to decide them by a common order.2. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'), It is relevant to mention here that except Writ Petitions Nos. 2541 of 1999 and 1103 of 2000, all the five writ petitions were initially filed as original applications before the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, Jodhpur, and on its abolition, they have been transferred to this Court.3. In all these writ petitions, while the goods were in transit with the transporters, the goods were checked in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 78 of the Act and on finding that either documents required under Sub-section (2) of Section 78 of the Act were not being carried along with the goods or there was some deficiency in the particulars of the documents or some of the documents...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001(4)WLC65; 2001(3)WLN127
Balia, J.(1). These two appeals raise a common question about the constitutional validity of Explanation II to Section 2(38) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1994 (hereinafter called the Act of 1994) on the envil that it is ultra vires the legislative competence of the Stale Legislature to enact a law by providing that 'notwithstanding the agreement for works Contract has been wholly on in part entered into outside the State or the goods have been wholly or in part moved outside the State, still it shall be deemed to be sale inside the State if the goods are in the State at the time of their use, application or incorporation in the execution of works contract as it impinges on item 92A of the Union list of Schedule VII and the provisions of Article 286 of the Constitution of India.(2). We may notice the facts in brief giving rise to these two appeals separately.(3). Appeal No. 1538/99 arises out of dismissal of writ petition No. 4983/99. The assessee, which is a company covered under the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1981(8)ELT440(Raj); 1978(11)WLN481
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. These are eight writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and can be conveniently disposed of by a s ingle judgment as they have been heard together and the questions involved in all of them are the same.2. It will suffice to state the facts in Writ Petition No. 1961 of 1970. The petitioner in connection with its business of manufacture of Aluminium Conductor Steel Reinforced and all Aluminium Conductors, imported Electrolytic Grade Aluminium Wire Rods which were not extruded from outside India. One such consignment was imported under Bill of Entry No. 2431, dated July 7, 1965. The consignment consisted of 9.165 M. T. of Electrolytic Grade Aluminium Wire of 90% to 99.5% purity and 3' diameter. These goods were cleared from the Customs at Bombay and at the time of clearance, the Assistant Collector (Principal Appraiser) Customs, Bombay levied duties as under,-Customs Duty 16 1/2%Countervailing Duty Rs. 396 per M.T.3. The petitioner paid the above...
Tag this Judgment!