Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1430; (2009)12VatReporter17
Vineet Kothari, J.1. These revision petitions have been filed by the Revenue under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1994) being aggrieved by the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer dated 18/6/2067, whereby, the Tax Board decided a batch of sue appeals filed by the Assessee and another batch of six appeals filed by the Revenue. These cross appeals arose out of the order of first appellate authority - Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur dated 22/7/2006, whereby, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the levy of tax upon the assessee, whereas, set aside the levy of interest and penalty imposed by the assessing authority under Section 65 of the Act. So far as levy of tax was upheld, the assessee was aggrieved and, therefore, it preferred six appeals for six different assessment years namely A.Y.2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. As far as levy of interest and penalty is concerned, since first appellat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1973CriLJ1637
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, by K. Narendra, Managing Proprietor, Printer, Publisher and Editor of Hindi Daily 'Veer Arjun', New Delhi and Nanak Ram Israni, Correspondent of the above paper, Ajmer, against the order dated November 4, 1971, of learned Additional MunsinVMagis-trate, Ajmer City (East).2. The brief facts of this case are that Amrit Kumar Advocate had been engaged in Criminal Case No. 238 of 1966 (State V. Ajit Singh under Sections 323 and 335, Indian Penal Code), pending in the court of Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, Ajmer, on behalf of Ajit Singh. When Ajit Singh had come to know on 25-8-1970, that that case had been decided against him and he had been convicted and sentenced, he had shouted to attract the attention of the court as to how he had been convicted when he had already given to his Advocate Amrit Kumar bribe money to be paid to the Munsiff-Magistrate. At that time Amrit Kumar was also present b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2003Raj340; RLW2004(1)Raj373; 2004(1)WLC201
ORDERB. Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition claiming that in Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1986') there is a Chapter IV which deals with the Royalty Collection Contract or Excess Royalty Collection Contract. Rule 32 of this Rule provides that royalty collection contract may be given in respect of such area and such mineral as the Director may by a general or special order direct. Rule 35 of the Rules of 1986 inter alia gives a procedure for inviting tenders.2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the powers conferred under Rules 32 and 35 of the Rules of 1986, respondent No. 3 invited tenders vide tender notice dated 4-6-2003 for the purposes of granting Excess Royalty Collection Contract on minor mineral 'marble' for the areas comprising in Tehsil Banswara. Gaddi of District Banswara and Tehsil Aaspur of Dungarpur. A copy of the tender notice is produced with the writ petition as Annex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1980WLN107
ORDERC.M. Lodha, C.J.1. The above three special, appeals under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinances 1949, arise, out of the judgment by M.L. Joshi, J. dated January 28, 1977, where by the 'learned Judge partly allowed civil writ petitions Nos. 17 and 21 of 1976, filed by M/s Parekh Automobiles and Sukh Sampat Raj respectively, against the Municipal Council, jodhpur, and restrained the Municipal Council from charging or realising octroi on the goods brought within the limits of the Municipal Council by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., but re exported by the said Corporation outside the Municipal limits Council their refile out lets for use and consumption outside the limits of the Municipal Council|. However, the prayer of the petitioners for refund of the octroi, already paid by them was-refused. Aggrieved by the direction' issued against in the Municipal Council has preferred appeals Nos. 9 and 13 of 1977. M/s Parekh Automobiles there in after to be referred to as the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1991(2)WLC597; 1991(1)WLN237
M.R. Calla, J.1. These three cases involve common questions of law and facts and hence we propose to decide all these three cases by this common judgment.2. The facts of these cases present a typical lis between the in-serving Engineers seeking appointments to the post of Assistant Engineer by direct recruitment and the Engineer graduates in the open market who are also seeking appointments to the post of Assistant Engineer by direct recruitment. This Us between the candidates of two different types both seeking direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineers has engaged the attention of this Court because of the dismal fact that although the scheme of the Rules, namely, the Rajasthan Service Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to the Rules of 1954) provides for both the names of recruitment on the post of Assistant Engineer i.e. by direct recruitment as well as promotion, there has been no direct recruitment on the post of Assistant Eng...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1990(2)WLN530
J.R. Chopra, J.1. These two petitions: one filed by Jodhpur University Temporary Teachers Forum (for short 'the Forum' and the other filed by one Shri Mohan Swaroop Mahesh wari Associate Professor, Department of Physics and Member of syndicate, University of Jodhpur, Jodhpur raise certain common questions of law and facts and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.2. Succinctly stated the facts of the writ petition No. 2916 of 1990, filed by the Fourm are: that the members of the petitioner fourm are serving this University for the past some years. In order to safeguard their rights and to have the bargains and for obtaining better conditions of service from the University of Jodhpur, this forum was constituted by the temporary teachers of the Jodhpur University.3. It was contended that qualifications for confirming. Teaching Staff of the Jodhpur University are provided and regulated by Ordinance 317 of the Jodhpur University and those qualific...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1979WLN466
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, has challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 320A, which was added in Part VIII, Section XVIII of the Rajasthan Prisons Rules, 1951 (for short 'the Rules' hereafter) made under Section 59 of the Prisons Act (No. IX of 1894), ('the Act') hereinafter.2. The petitioner was appointed as a warder in Central Jail, Jodhpur, on January 1, 1970 and he was confirmed on this post in 1973 The petitioner has stated that he is the Secretary of the Jail Branch of the Rajasthan Subordinate Services Association of Jodhpur District, A notification No. GSR 149, dated December 15, 1978 (Ann. 1, was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra, dated December 28, 1978 by which, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by proviso to Article 309 of he Constitution, the Governor of Rajasthan amended the Rules by adding the following new Rule 320A after existing Rule 320.320A. Restrictions respecting right to for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1987)59CTR(Raj)175; [1987]167ITR764(Raj); [1987]32TAXMAN204(Raj)
S. S. BYAS J. - In pursuance of the directions issued by this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 15,500 levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for concealment of income ?'Briefly recounted, the material facts giving rise to this reference are that the assessee is an individual. The assessment year in dispute is 1967-68. The assessee filed the return for the aforesaid year on September 14, 1967, declaring an income of Rs. 3,986. Subsequently, she filed a revised return on July 29, 1971, declaring an income of Rs. 11,703 therein. The Income-tax Officer determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 67,907 by his order, annexure 1, dated March 28,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988(2)WLN14
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. These appeals have been filed by the State of Rajasthan under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, against the judgment dated December 3, 1980 of the learned Single Judge of this Court, who has struck down Sub-section (9A) of Section 86 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as 'the Act').2. Sub-section (9A) of Section 86, confers on the State Government the power:(i) to transfer any member of the service, known as the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service from one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti, whether within the District or outside it; and(ii) To stay the operation of or cancel, any order of transfer made under Sub-section (9) of the rules made there under.This Sub-section in Section 86 of the Act was inserted by the Rajasthan Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Act, 1966 which was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated April 6, 1966. In exercise of the powers conferre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1988]71STC204(Raj); 1988(1)WLN625
M.C. Jain, J. 1. The revision petitions mentioned in the Schedule annexed with this order raise a common question of law, so, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. These revisions are directed against the orders of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer whereby the order of the assessing authority and of the appellate authority imposing penalty under Section 5C(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 have been set aside and it has been held that the articles purchased by the assessees are the 'raw materials' and the department is estopped to challenge that the articles mentioned in the registration certificates are not the 'raw materials'.3. It would be proper to consider the facts of the case of M/s. Lodha Fabrics, Pali in S. B. Sales Tax Revisions Nos. 332 of 1987, 333 of 1987 and 334 of 1987. In these cases, the assessee purchased caustic soda and soda ash in different accounting periods for varying amounts. The assessing authority held that out of the quantity of raw ...
Tag this Judgment!