Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2007(2)JCR57(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The present Cr. Revision is directed against the order dated 22.6.2006 passed by Shri Anand Prakash, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the petition filed under Section 239, Cr PC by the petitioner in Forest Case No. 175/1998 for his discharge was rejected.2. The brief fact of the case is that the Forester of Tupudana Forest Check Post presented a written complaint before the C.J.M., Ranchi alleging inter alia, that he had intercepted a bus No. B.R. 14P/1111 carrying the planks of Gamhar illegally and on demand by the forest officials, no document was produced in respect of transportation of the planks and for such reason the bus with the planks loaded thereon was seized under Section 52 of Indian Forest. (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1989 and the driver of the bus was directed to park the bus by the side of the check post. While the complainant was preparing the seizure list the driver of the vehicle instead of parking the vehicle, speeded the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : (2008)217CTR(Jharkhand)233; [2008]298ITR109(Jharkhand); [2008(4)JCR709(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar-II, Ranchi filed two applications under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and prayed to the Appellate Tribunal to refer the question arising out of the order of the Tribunal for answer by this Court. Hence, after setting out the relevant facts, the Tribunal solicited the opinion of this Court on the following question of Law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Members of the Tribunal were justified in deleting the penalty of Rs. 2,97,631/-?2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was assessed under the status of individual. He is the proprietor of M/s. S.R. & Co. The assessee maintained mercantile system of accountancy and the accounting period is the financial year ending on 31st March of each year. For both the assessment years, the assessments were completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act on 19.3.1985 and 20.12.1985. A se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR2126; [2008(3)JCR698(Jhr)]; (2009)24VST233(Jharkh)
M.Y. Eqbal, Acting C.J.1. The instant writ petition has been listed for hearing after the matter was remitted back by the Supreme Court in terms of order dated 23rd July, 2007 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3188 of 2007.2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of re-assessment dated 5/5/2006 passed under Sections 17(3) and 19 of the Bihar Finance Act. The writ petition was dismissed by this Bench on 27/11/2006 holding that the petitioner may avail the statutory remedy of appeal against the assessment order as provided under the Act. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner moved the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remitted the matter to this court with observation that the question of vires of the provision of the Act and the Rules cannot be gone into by the Authority under the Act. The relevant portion of the order of the Supreme Court is reproduced herein below:In our view the question of vires of provisions of the Act or the Rule cannot be gone into by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2008(1)JCR210(Jhr)]; (2009)21VST173(Jharkh)
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ declaring that the inter-state safes originated from Pondicherry to the State of Bihar in execution of works contract are exigible to sales tax to Pondicherry jurisdiction under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and further prayed for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order of assessment for the year 1994-95 so far as raising of additional tax demand of Rs. 5,35,223=24 or inter-state sales transactions which is exigible to Pondicherry jurisdiction under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is concerned, as the same being illegal and contrary to law and is wholly without jurisdiction. Further prayer has been made for issuance of appropriate direction to respondent No. 3 to give effect to the tax paid and realized and grant of refund of the said amount.2. The brief facts of the case are as under:The petitioner is a registered company having business activities i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR652
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a writ or order in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents not to make settlement of any land in any manner with any person which is within the lease hold area of 13007 Bighas of the petitioner as mentioned and described in the indenture dated 1st March, 1946 and as accepted by the State of Bihar by indenture dated 29th March, 1973 and for a further writ of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents not to pass any order with regard to any claim made by any person in respect of any surface land in lease hold area of the petitioner with an additional direction to the Respondents to refrain from interfering in any manner directly or indirectly with the possession of the petitioner over the lease hold land.2. The case of the petitioner is that the then Maharaja Kamakhya Narayan Singh, Raja of Ramgarh being the proprietor of villages Durukasmar, Banji, Parej, Pundi, Barughuttu, Kedla, Parsabera and Du...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2008(57)BLJR117; [2008(4)JCR260(Jhr)]
D.P. Singh, J.1. The present election petition has been preferred by the petitioner for declaring election of the sole respondent, the returned candidate from 10-Dumka Assembly Constituency reserved for scheduled tribe category as null and void.The petitioner's case is as under:i. That he as a voter from the Dumka assembly constituency, had filed his nomination paper to contest election of assembly seat held in the year 2005. However, his nomination paper was rejected illegally by the Returning Officer-cum-S.D.M., Dumka on 7.2.2005.ii. That illegal rejection of the nomination paper filed by the petitioner was just to help the returned candidate and was against the provisions of law.iii. That the petitioner being 'Lohar' by caste had been declared scheduled tribe in Part III list of scheduled tribes at Sl. No. 22 for the State of Bihar by the President of India under Article 342 of the Constitution of India.iv. That recognition of 'Lohar'/'Lohra' otherwise spelt as 'Lohar' by different ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2007(4)JCR437(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The appellant was put on trial for the charges under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been found guilty of the charge under Section 304-B and has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 127 of 1998.2. The prosecution case was that Charki Devi, the informant's daughter was married with accused Rajendra Mahto six years ago; But she was being subjected to harassment, cruelty and torture for not fulfilling the demand of scooter and cash of Rs. 25,000/- as dowry: On 16.5.1997, at about 10 O'Clock, sister-in-law of the informant, namely, Gango Devi had gone for extending invitation and in her presence the appellant had assaulted the informant's daughter till she became unconscious. The appellant did not provided her any medical treatment and she ultimately succumbed to her injuries.3. In order to prove the charges against the accused-a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR1416
Dilip Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.9.2006 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, 8th -cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 4(A)/86(D) whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted under Section 161 I.P.C. and Sections 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, accordingly, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count. Besides his substantive sentence for imprisonment under the P.C. Act, fine of Rs. 500/- was awarded to him with default stipulation to serve out rigorous imprisonment for one month and both the sentences recorded against him were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution story in brief was that the complainant Rohan Manjhi presented a written report to the S.P., C.B.I., Dhanbad narrating therein that he was working as loader in Lohapatti Colliery. On 4.1.86 he sustained injuries in his leg while he was on duty and he informed the Shift Incharge abou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2008(2)JCR174(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. In the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for, for the following reliefs:(i) For declaration that the supply of medicines, surgical items, vaccines, X-ray items etc which are supplied by the petitioner to its indoor patients during the course of their treatment is not a transaction which comes within the meaning of 'Sale' as defined under Section 2(t) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and, therefore, is not taxable under the said Act.(ii) For declaration that the petitioner does not come within the definition of 'Dealer' as defined under the provisions of Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and, therefore, is not required to be registered as 'Dealer' under the said Act.(iii) To quash the notice dated 31/3/2005 contained in Annexure- 3 to the writ application issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur, asking the petitioner to explain as to why an action be not taken against it for not registering itself as registered 'Dealer'.(iv)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : (2008)219CTR(Jharkhand)373; [2008]298ITR413(Jharkhand); [2008(1)JCR28(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 whereby the following questions of law have been referred to this Court-1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made under the head 'Income from House Property' arising out of determining the annual value in respect of portion of the house property rented out to M/s Wool House on the basis of rent received in respect of similar portion of the house property-rented out to a third party?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in directing that Annual value of the property in respect of portion rented to M/s Wool House should be determined obo actual rent received from M/s Wool House, when because of the close relationship between the assessee and M/s Wool House, the annual value should be determined on the consideration of rent receivable indicated by the rent receiv...
Tag this Judgment!