Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1987]65STC92(Raj); 1986(1)WLN508
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board'), has referred the following question, for the opinion of this Court:Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and while dealing with rectification matter, the Board of Revenue was justified in remanding the cases for reassessment under the provisions of Section 9(3)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and also when the non-applicant assessee had not preferred any appeal or revision against the assessment orders dated 16th September, 1966 ?2. Facts first. The assessment of the firm M/s. Sushil Kumar Kamal Kant, Bhadra, was made by the Commercial Taxes Officer (C.T.O.), Hanumangarh, on September 16, 1966, in respect of the assessment years 1961-62,1962-63 and 1963-64 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'the CST Act') and a demand for Rs. 24,739.58 was created against the firm. As the amount of the demand was not paid, the recovery proceedings were started against Gulab Chand Malpani, one o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : I(1987)ACC344; AIR1986Raj192; 1986(2)WLN145
Kasliwal, J. 1. One Chiranjilal died in a motor accident and his legal representatives Smt. Kistoori Devi and others filed a claim under Section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by judgment dated 13-10-80 awarded an amount of Rs. 30,750/- in all by way of compensation to the claimants. The aforesaid amount of compensation also included an amount of Rs. 1,500/- allowed to Smt. Kistoori Devi widow of Chiranjilal deceased by way ofmental shock and loss of consortium, andRs. 800/- each to Banwarilal, Brajesh Kumar,Kamlesh Kumar, Vipin Behari and ChandraShekhar, all sons of deceased Chiranjilal byway of loss of love and affection and mentalagony, The Rajasthan State Road TransportCorporation, hereinafter referred to as the'Corporation', filed an appeal challenging theAward dated 13-10-80 given by the Tribunal.The learned single Judge considered that animportant question of law had been raisedduring the arg...
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 : [1985]64STC449(Raj); 1985(2)WLN722
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This Court, by its order dated November 15, 1979, passed in D.B. Sales Tax Case No. 25 of 1979, directed the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short 'the Board'), to state the case and refer the following question of law for its opinion :Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that even though the default on the part of the dealer under Rule 25C was established, yet it only constituted a technical breach and may be overlooked ?2. The question is said to arise out of the order dated March 14, 1978, passed in Special Appeal No. 121/74/ST/Pali, which the Board refused to do by its order dated November 15, 1978. The reference was pending on May 1, 1985, the date on which the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984 (No. 20 of 1984) (for short 'the Amendment Act'), came into force. According to Section 13(11) of the Amendment Act, this reference has been treated and heard as a revision under Section 15...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1986]63STC428(Raj)
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 July, 1980, passed in Special Appeal No. 13/79/RST/Udaipur:Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case an offence under Section 16(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1964, was made out and the penalty was wrongly directed to be imposed under Section 16(1)(n) of the said Act 2. The defendant-assessee (non-petitioner) was assessed to tax for the period 1st April, 1972, to 31st March, 1973, on 28th May, 1973, by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle B, Udaipur. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Central Division I, Udaipur, inspected the business premises of the assessee on 21st October, 1973. There he found a diary and some other documents. It appeared that certain transactions of sales and purchases relating to the period 1st June, 1973, to 20th October, 1973, were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1987]65STC282(Raj); 1985(2)WLN733
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward-I, Circle C, Jodhpur (A.C.T.O.) has filed this revision under Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan SalesTax Act (No. 29 of 1954) (for short 'the Act') read with Section 13(6) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984 (No. 20 of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act') against the order dated 30th October, 1984, of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board' herein), allowing the revision filed under Section 14(2) of the Act in part holding that the tax amount of Rs. 7,673.68 levied at the rate of 8 per cent on the turnover of Rs. 96,919.85 was not tenable and that it was set aside. The dealer-assessee, at the relevant time was dealing in cold drinks, fruit juice, ice-cream, etc. and supplied them in its restaurant. The period involved is 1st January, 1977 to 31st December, 1978. He was assessed by the assessing authority by its order dated 14th January, 1982. The assessing authority levied tax o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1986)54CTR(Raj)399; [1987]163ITR440(Raj)
1. Application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order dated January 31, 1976, passed in R.A. No. 36/JP/1975-76, has been filed before this court by the assessee. Learned Tribunal refused to refer some of the questions prayed for arising out of the appellate order dated May 25, 1975, in Income-tax Appeal No. 122/JP/1974-75.2. The brief facts of the case are that in the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee firm filed its return of income on August 29, 1969, showing a total taxable income of Rs. 50,720.59. During the assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer made some queries and directed the petitioner-assessee to disclose the details and also to show the reasons on which he claims the deduction of the loss incurred out of the income of the firm. Placed in this situation, the assessee filed a revised return for the assessment year 1966-67 on August 25, 1970, showing a total income of Rs. 1,63,370.59. The difference between the original and the revised r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1986]62STC222(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board'), has referred the following question of law for the opinion to this Court in pursuance of the order dated 5th July, 1979, passed in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, 'C Ward, Makrana v. Bisoda Salt Works, Nawa (District Nagaur) (D. B. Civil Sales Tax Case No. 73 of 1978 decided on 5th July, 1979):Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Central sales tax is leviable on gunny bags in which salt is sold by the assessee ?2. The assessee, M/s. Bisoda Salt Works, Nawa (District Nagaur), is non-petitioner No. 1. It is a partnership firm. It carries business of salt. The salt was sold by the dealer-assessee after packing it in gunny bags in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. The assessing authority assessed the sale of gunny bags for the period 1966-67 at Rs. 52,000 and levied Central sales tax at 2 per cent on the sales, amounting to Rs. 1,270.75 up to 30th June, 1966, and at 3 per cent there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1986(10)ECC389; 1987(32)ELT541(Raj)
1. These 15 special appeals before us arise out of a common judgment dated May 6, 1982, passed by a learned Single Judge, by which he allowed 15 writ petitions, which have given rise to these appeals and declared that acrylic plastic sheets/tubes and plastic bangles do not attract excise duty under Central Excise Tariff ('the Tariff') Item No. 15A(2), of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (No. 1 of 1944) (for short 'the Act'), and the appellants, who were non-petitioners in the writ petitions, were restrained from levying excise duty on the aforesaid products.2. The question involved in these special appeals is common and so, they were heard together and we consider it proper to dispose of them by a common order.3. The facts leading to these appeals are substantially the same and, therefore, we shall notice the facts in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 572/82 : Union of India and Ors. v. Raish Plastics. This appeal has arisen out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1985WLN(UC)215
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order Annexure-1, whereby the petitioner has been found to be ineligible for the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine.2. The petitioner obtained his post graduate degree in Forensic Medicine from the Lucknow University in December, 1978. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine through a Central Selection Committee on temporary basis. The post of Lecturers in Forensic Medicine were advertised by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (here in after referred as the Commission). In pursuance of this the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine and the Commission after examining his qualifications informed the petitioner vide Annexure 1 that since the post graduate degree recognised by the Lucknow University has not been recognized by the Medical Council of India, therefore, he is not eligible for the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine.3...
Tag this Judgment!