Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2003)181CTR(Raj)234; RLW2003(4)Raj2208; [2004]136STC317(Raj)
Bhagwati Prasad, J. 1. All these revision petitions involve similar question of law and facts and, therefore, they are being decided by a common order.2. For factual matrix, S.B. Civil Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 931/2002 (M/s Mamta Surginal Cotton Industries v. Asstt. Commr. (Anti-Evasion, Bhilwara & Ors.) is taken up. The petitioner is a partnership firm duly registered under the Rajasthan Sales-tax Act, 1994, Central Sales-tax Act, 1956, and rules framed thereunder. The petitioner is carrying on the business of processing the cotton and making it amenable for surgical cotton. The petitioner during the relevant period had purchased cotton after paying tax at the rate of 4 per cent and carried out the process for transforming the ordinary cotton into surgical cotton. The case of the petitioner is that in such a process, cotton does not get changed into such a new commodity which can be said to be one making it to be taxed over again. This contention raised by the petitioner prevai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1987]67STC103(Raj)
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. The appellant, M/s. Centuary Ecka, Jodhpur, is a duly registered partnership firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, having its registered office at 182, Balniketan Road, Jodhpur, and its branch office at Pali. This firm is also registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter, for short, 'the Rajasthan Act') as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter, for short, 'the Central Act'). This firm is doing business in purchasing and selling of packing materials, that is, waterproof paper (bituminised paper), the PVC bags and poly propylene bags, etc., at Jodhpur as well as at Pali. During the financial year 1978-79, the appellant-firm effected sale of waterproof paper only worth Rs. 2,32,074.50 at its head office at Jodhpur and worth Rs. 25,757.10 at its branch office at Pali and it charged sales tax from the customers at 4 per cent treating them as packing material and deposited the tax amount a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1981WLN701
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. A 'Crackdown' & 'Mass sacking' of University Lecturers (temporary) on change of ruling party by issuing the Governors Ordinance, whether offends the equal protection Clause, is the billion dollar question, raised under the banner of discrimination between 'pre-emergency' and 'post-emergency' appointees by Section 3 of the Ordinance. The 25th June, 1975' having been made the 'Laxaman Rekha','deadline' or 'D Day, for regularisation of services, the ousted post-emergency Lecturers have invoked Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India to quash the '25th June, 1975', Arbitrary dead line', a 'brainchild' of the then Vice Chancellors and readily welcomed by the then Government, the ruling party of which is alleged to be anti-emergency.2. The ruling political parties existence being temporary and changing, in federal democratic Constitution, but the bureaucracy and services, being permanent, unalloyed, and unadulterated bedrock of the State; should the High Court as w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1996Raj4; 1995(3)WLC260; 1995(1)WLN489
ORDERN.K. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned assessment orders and demand notices dt. 6-12-1985, Annexures 2, 3, 4 and 5. It has been prayed that the order dt. 21-4-1988 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur, may kindly bequashed. The petitioner has further prayed that it may be held that the petitioner was fully covered by the Notification dt. 3-3-1982 (Anx. 1) and was entitled to exemption from payment of Entertainment Tax.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that he took on lease one 'Nohra' from one Mangi Lal Rathi and constructed a Cinema House of ordinary construction after investing substantial amount of money. It is alleged that the non-petitioner No. 3 inspected the Cinema House on 30-10-1982. Thereafter show cause notice was issued to the petitioner-firm and ultimately assessment order dt. 6-12-1982 was passed for the month of October, 1982 and November, 1982 hol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN180
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. This writ petition of creditors of Badri Prasad & Kailash Chand raises an important question of law whether an Additional District Judge is competent to exercise the power of revision under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act).2. Respondent No. 3 Phadee filed an application under Section 6 of the Act in the Debt Relief Court (Munsiff), Dholpur for the determination of his debt. The Debt Relief Court determined the debt to the extent of Rs. 3,798.75. A revision was filed against the judgment of the Debt Relief Court in the court of Additional District Judge, Dholpur. The learned Additional District Judge while disposing of the revision application reduced the debt to Rs. 500/-. It is this judgment of the Additional District Judge that has been challenged in the present writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the learned Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2004(1)Raj586; 2002(4)WLC123; 2003(2)WLN634
Arun Kumar, C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 77 (8) of the SalesTax Act, 1994 on the ground that the same is violative of Articles 14 and 19 of theConstitution of India.2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner is a medical practitioner. According to the petitioner, in the usual course of his profession certain articles and medicines remain lying at his residence. These articles are meant to be used in treatment of patients. On 24th January 2000, a survey was conducted at the residential premises of the petitioner in which certain surgical items and medicines were found. The petitioner was served with a notice for imposing penalty under Section 77 (8) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, of 1994). The petitioner replied to the notice. After further enquiry, the respondent No. 2, Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, passed an ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2004(4)Raj2528; 2004(4)WLC219
N.P. Gupta, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the charge-sheet Annexure-8 dt. 24.3.2004, so also order of expulsion, passed against the two petitioners on 31.3.2004 being Annexure-9 & 10, and also seek a direction to allow both the petitioners to appear in the Final Examination of MSW Course commencing from 19.4.2004, or any other date as notified by the respondents, for the Academic Session 2003-2004. The directions are sought against the two respondents, being No. 1 Jain Vishva Bharati Institute (Deemed University) Ladnun, District Nagour through its Vice Chancellor, and No. 2 being the Registrar, Jain Vishva Bharati Institute (Deemed University).2. The factual allegations are, that the Institute was founded in the year 1970, with the inspiration of late Acharya Shri Tulsi, as a centre of education, literature, culture, social service, meditation and spirituality, with a primary objective of the institute, to provide instruction, training, research, experim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2000(4)WLC647; 2007(3)WLN226
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The grievance projected by the petitioners in all these petitions is more or less identical. All the petitioners are the employees of the Avas Vikas Sansthan (for short AVS). Before dealing with the controversy raised in the writ petitions few background facts are necessary to be incorporated.2. In the year 1988 National Housing Policy was placed before the Parliament, where it was recommended to establish building centres in different parts of the country. The decision/guidelines were circulated to all the Chief Secretaries of the States on August 12, 1988. The State of Rajasthan issued a direction to the Rajasthan Housing Board to implement the centrally sponsored scheme for establishment of building centres. A decision was taken in its 139th meeting of the Rajasthan Housing Board (in short the RHB) to set up building centres and it was decided to form a separate society in the name of Avas Vikas Sansthan (AVS). The scheme was formulated by the RHB in collabor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1981WLN(UC)518
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. These two civil misc. appeals involving similar questions of law and facts are disposed by this judgment. Appeal No. 202 of 1976 State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Gulam Ahmed son of Haji Peerji is against the judgment and decree, dated July 30, 1976 of learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi and the other appeal No. 203 of 1976 State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Akbar son of Gulam Ahmed is against judgment the and decree, dated July 29, 1976 of the same court.2. Briefly stated the facts relating to the State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Gulam Ahmed are these. Gulam Ahmed filed a suit in the court of Munsif, Abu Road for permanent injunction against the State of Rajasthan and the District Forest Officer, Sirohi for restraining them to recover the amount alleged to be due against him for wrongful felling of the trees. The allegations contained in the plaint were these. Plaintiff Gulam Ahmed took contract for the manufacture of coal from the State of Rajasthan for the year 196...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN215
Kan Singh, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees' Insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act', longed by the Regional Director on behalf of the Employees State Insurance Corporation, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Corporation', and is directed against the order of the Employees Insurance Court (Civil Judge), Ganganagar, dismissing an application made by the Corporation under Section 75(2) of the Act for the recovery of employees' contribution from the respondents in respect of the employees of the Water Works maintained by the Municipal Council of Ganganagar at Ganganagar.2. The Corporation averred that the Water Works maintained by the Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar, was a factory as defined in Sub-section 12 of Section 2 of the Act and consequently the Municipal Council as employer was liable to pay contribution as required by Section 40(1) of the Act at the rates provided under Section 39 read with Schedule I of the Act to the Corporatio...
Tag this Judgment!