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 : 1990LC375(Rajasthan); 1991(52)ELT18(Raj)
S.N. Bhargava J.1. These writ petitions involve similar facts and questions of law, so they are being disposed of by a common order. Taking the facts of Writ Petition No. 1849/1989.2. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has got several units throughout the country, out of which two units, known as Shri Ram Vinyl & Chemical Industries and Shri Ram Fertilizer and Chemicals, are located at Kota, in the State of Rajasthan. Shri Ram Vinyl & Chemical Industries has been manufacturing P.V.C. Resin, P.V.C. Compound, P.V.C. Compound MBs, Caustic Soda etc. It has been regularly paying all the demands and dues under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner has been selling nearly 70% of its manufactured articles at the factory gate and the remaining nearly 30% through its various depots at Ahmedabad, Calcutta, Delhi, Indore, Nasirabad, Kundi, Ludhiana, Madras and Meera. The excise duty is being paid regularly. For the first time, the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1989WLN(UC)457
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants against the appellate decree of the District Judge, Pratapgarh dated January 30, 1976 affirming the preliminary decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Pratapgarh dated May 1, 1971 whereby the latter had decreed Civil Suit No. 64 of 1966 instituted by the plaintiffs for possession of their portion in a 'haveli' and shop situated in Sadar Bazar, Mochi Para, Chhittorgarh after taking accounts of the income derived by the appellants from the share of the plaintiffs' property.2. Facts leading to the filling of this second appeal are that on April 4, 1966, the plaintiffs-respondents instituted Civil Suit No 64 of 1966 against Chhaganlal and his son Niranjan Lal Chhaganlal died during the pendency of the suit. His son Niranjan Lal was already on record and his widow Smt. Alil Bai was also substituted as his legal representative. The plaintiffs-respondents alleged in the plaint that the parties alongwith Udailal and Bhanwar La...
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!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 : 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 : (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(1)WLN191
ORDER AGAINST TN 3010 FOR SUPPLY OF ACSR PANTHER CONDUCTOR (.) DEPUTE YOUR FULLY AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR DISCUSSION ON DECEMBER 29, 1982.3. It was followed by another telegram, dated January 3, 1983, thereafter another telegram on January 17, 1983, fixing January 24, 1983, but instead of sending a representative, the petitioner's case is that respondent sent a notice, dated February 22, 1983, through their counsel re-pudiating the contract calling upon to refer all disputes and differences to arbitrators and further informed about nominating Shri S. Rangarajan, Sr. Advocate, Supreme Court, as their arbitrator and requested to nominate the arbitrator by the Board. On March 8, 1983, the petitioner wrote to respondent No. 1 inter alia stating that the delivery schedule for supply needs revision and re-fixation by mutual negotiations and that the reference to arbitration and appointment of Shri S. Rangarajan is premature. It was further mentioned that if the petitioners were not agre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1986]61STC264(Raj); 1985(2)WLN351
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board' herein), has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court, which is said to arise out of its order dated 7th August, 1979, passed in Special Appeal No. 1/9/76 Bikaner :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the work of excavating gypsum from the earth involves a manufacturing process?2. The non-petitioner, M/s. Bikaner Gypsum Limited, Bikaner (assessee), was engaged in the work of excavating gypsum. For this purpose, it bought spare parts, machinery and other equipments, tyres and tubes against declaration in form S.T. 17 saying that the aforesaid goods were required for manufacturing and mining. The Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jodhpur, by his order, dated 22nd March, 1968, held that the non-petitioner (assessee) is not a manufacturer and under Section 6C of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1964 (Act No. 29 of 1954) (for short 'the Act' hereinafter), purcha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1987]64STC324(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J. 1. As a common question of law arises in these two cases, we propose to dispose of them by a common order.2. These reference applications under Section 15(2) and Section 15(3A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are treated as revision petitions under Section 15(1) of the Act as amended by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984, because of the provisions of Sub-section (10) of Section 13 of the Amending Act of 1984, as they were pending before this Court at the time when the amending Act of 1984 came into force.3. The question which arises in both these cases is as to whether interest could be levied under Section 11B of the Act in respect of default of payment of tax for part of a month at the relevant time. The period of assessment in the case of M/s. Hemraj Udhyog in respect of which this question arose, was from June 22, 1974, to July 10, 1975. In the case of M/s. Keshrilal Lalchand the period of assessment was from ...
Tag this Judgment!