Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1991(1)WLN153
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the assessee Under Section 15, Rajasthan Sales-tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be called 'the Rajasthan Act') against the order of the learned member, Rajasthan Sales-tax Tribunal, Ajmer dated July 6,1988 by which he has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes Department, Udaipur dated February 4,1988, confirming the assessment order levying tax on the freight charges and imposing penalty and interest thereon. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.2. On December 17, 1986, the business premises of the petitioner was surveyed. It was noticed that the amounts of freight recovered from the buyers were not included in the taxable turn over. After giving notice to the petitioner and hearing it, assessment order Under Section 9, Central Sales-tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be called 'the Central Act') read with Section 7-B of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1979WLN403
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. This is a writ-petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India whereby the petitioner has challenged the recovery of an amount of Rs. 11879/- from him under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952 (Act No. V of 1952) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and has prayed that the orders passed by the Additional Collector, Udaipur, dated February 3, 1972, as also the appellate order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, dated December 23, 1972, upholding the order of the Additional Collector and the order passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan Ex. 5 dismissing the petitioner's revision-application be set aside.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this writ-petition are these : A contract for the excise shop of Hathi Pol City No. 1 was sanctioned for Samvat year 2006 for Rs. 23000/- in favour of the petitioner, against whom a sum of Rs. 11879-, was found to be outstanding. The district Excise Officer. Udaipur, theref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2000Raj215; 2000(4)WLC739
V.S. Kokje, J.1. The petitioners Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh and Akhil Bhartiya Shri Jain Ratna Yuvak Sangh had filed this petition in public interest against the State of Rajasthan. The Director General of Police (Crime), Jaipur. The Collector, Nagaur. The Station House Officer, Police Station Merta City, Gram Sevak, Gram Panchayat Anandpur Kalu. Panchayat Samiti Jaitaran, District Pali and the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Jodhpur complaining about illegal transportation of Bovine animals in violation of the Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 and the Rules framed thereunder, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 4th January, 2000 a notice was directed to be issued to the respondents as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of at the stage of admission. An interim stay order as prayed was also granted subject to the condition that the Cows will be maintained at the cost of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1974WLN663
J.P. Jain, J.1. This is appeal by the State of Rajasthan against the order dated 8th April, 1969 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhaiawer whereby he set aside the conviction of Radhey Shyam respondent under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Action the ground that the trial by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Jhalawar was illegal and ultra vires on his part.2. Abdul Rabim. Head Constable of Bhawani Mandi police station found a bullock cart carrying 7 bags on the Jhalawar road near village Ramnagar. Raghunath respondent No. 2 was driving the bullock cart. On being interrogated he informed the Head Constable that the bags belonged to Seth Kunnanmal of Bhawani Mandi. His Munim Ramniwas had sent them to be transported so village Ghatod by his cart on hire. First information report Ex P.1 was, lodged on 12.4.1967 by the said Head Constable Abdul Rahim at the police station. After investigation Ragunath was prosecuted in the court of Sub-divisional Magistrate, Jhalawar Raghunath took the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1972Raj123; 1971(4)WLN275
Jain, J.1. This Is a special appeal under Section 18 (2) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 by leave of a Single Judge of this Court.2. Labhmal had a money decree against Lalchand, judgment-debtor for a sum of Rs. 5,862/-. By his application dated 12-7-1962 in the execution court, he prayed for the arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison. On notice the respondent judgment-debtor opposed the application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After enquiry, the Civil Judge, Jodhpur ordered the judgment-debtor to be sent to civil prison for six months. In appeal against this order the learned District Judge held that in view of the proviso to Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judgment-debtor was not liable to arrest and detention in civil prison. He accordingly set aside the order of the execution court and allowed the appeal by his order dated 7th April, 1965.3. The decree-holder presented an appeal against this order on 12th July, 1965...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001(4)WLC316; 2001(2)WLN432
ORDERMisra, J.(1). The petitioner had filed this writ petition challenging the assessment order dated 2.2.99 accompanied by notice of demand for payment of land and building tax. A short & simple submission was made at the threshold (o the effect that me petitioner is not an assessee at all in regard to the property yet liability has been fastened on him showing land & building tax arrears without issuing any notice to him. On this averment a show cause notice was issued to the respondent but during pendency of this writ petition, an application for impleadment was filed by one Shri Giriraj Kumar which was allowed in the interest of justice as he described himself as a public spirited person and raised a grievance that the Department of land and building Tax is not properly taking follow up action to realise the tax arrears from the petitioner due to some oblique motive. In order to arrive at a just conclusion and toguard the revenue of the Government, he was allowed to be impleaded. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1987]65STC215(Raj); 1985(1)WLN100
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. On a direction given by this Court, the Board of Revenue has sent the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:Whether entry No. 23 of the Notification No. F. 5(40)F.D. (R & T) 63-XIII dated 2nd March, 1963, under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, covers G.P. and G.C. sheets within the term 'iron and steel' when the petitioner purchases and sells these items in the same form in which it received them from the rolling mills ?2. M/s. Rajasthan Iron and Steel Merchants Association (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a dealer in the business of sale of galvanised plain and corrugated sheets and galvanised wire purchased from M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. or M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. The Commercial Taxes Department was treating such galvanised sheets and wires as 'iron and steel' for sales tax purposes up to 31st December, 1963 and assessing such sales to tax at 2 per cent. The ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1974WLN(UC)236
S.N. Modi, J.1. This first appeal by the plaintiff Badshah Ram is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Baran, dated 11-12-71 dismissing the suit for damages.2. The relevant facts of the case are as follows. Two parcels of land in village Anta, measuring 13 yds. by 6 yds. & 13 yds, by 3 yds. adjoining each other and constituting one plot measuring 13 yds. by 9 yds, were allotted to the plaintiff-appellant on 22-8-1956 and 24-5-1956 respectively by the Tehsildar, Anta, for purposes of a tea shop. The plaintiff in December 1960 constructed a shop over this plot of land by raising three walls on the sides and pillars with lintels on the front. On 16-1-61, respondent No. 3 Shri Harban-shlal Gupta, Assistant Colonisation Officr, Anta, lodged a complaint Under Section 23(b) of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, alleging that the shop was constructed without permission of the competent authority. During the pend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1984WLN585
G.M. Lodha, J.1. All the petitioners mentioned above claim to be the Managers of the Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Socities in Bharatpur District holding substantive posts and alleged that they are permanent employees. They have now received the orders which are impugned orders issued by the Managing Director, Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Bharatpur directing their compulsory retirement under Rule 17 of the Krishi Rin Datri Sahkari Samitiyon ke Vyavasthapakon ke Chayan, Niyukti and Seva Niyam, 1977 thereinafter referred to as, `the Rules, 19J7) in pursuance of the decision of the Committee. A specimen copy of the order passed in Ismail Khan's case is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:dk;kZy; nh Hkjriqj lsUVy dksvksijsfVo cSd fy0] Hkjriqjdzekad@_.k@293 fnukad 8&1&83 14&2&83Jh blekbZy [kak O;oLFkkid xzke lgdkjh lfefr fy0 }kjklgk;d vf/k'kk'kh vf/kdkjh i0 lfefr uxjfo'k; & vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fRr ckcr Afnukad 8&7&83 dks desVh dh cSBd gqbZ A ftl cSBd es vkidk ekeyk izLrqr gqvk...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1979WLN(UC)10
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is a civil second appeal by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and decree dated 6-9-1967 passed by the Civil Judge, Sojat, upholding the judgment and decree dated 31-7-1965 passed by the Munsif, Jaitaran, whereby the State of Rajasthan was restrained from effecting recovery of Rs. 990.72P. from the plaintiffs Ganesh Mal and Sohanlal.2. The plaintiffs' case, in brief, was that the plaintiffs were appointed agents for the storage and sales of food grains by the then Jodhpur Government under an agreement Ex. 1. The Government supplied 1540 'maunds wheat & 1,116 'maunds Gujji of the value of Rs. 31, 269/5/4. The plaintiffs were to be paid commission @ Rs. 1/10/- per maund. The Plaintiffs after deducting their commission amounting to Rs. 4, 316/- deposited the price of grain amounting to Rs. 26,953/5/4 in the Treasury through challans in two installments. When the commission bill was insisted by the Government, there was found a total shortage of Maunds 61.0 5 ...
Tag this Judgment!