Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1988)73CTR(Raj)152; [1990]185ITR586(Raj); 1988(2)WLN143
J.S. Verma, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, ('the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue to answer the following question of law, namely : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 91(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the full amount of tax deducted at source of Rs. 16,413 in the foreign country ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1976-77. During the relevant period, the assessee, a medical practitioner had received salary in Iran of Rs. 1,41,265 on which the tax deducted at source in Iran was Rs. 16,413. The assessee also earned an income of Rs. 5,247 in India during the same year. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80RRA of the Act in respect of the remuneration received by him for services rendered outside India and also relief from double taxation under Section 91(1) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer held that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1989]72STC364(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is a revision under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984. It relates to the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66.2. By order dated 21st February, 1966 the assessing authority, namely, Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle B, Jaipur, assessed the tax liability of the non-applicant M/s. Trade Link (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') for the year 1964-65 and by order dated 9th March, 1966 the tax liability of the assessee for the year 1965-66 was assessed. Instead of filing appeals against the said orders of assessment, the assessee filed revision petitions before the Board of Revenue under Section 14 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The said revision petitions of the assessee were dismissed as not maintainable by the learned single Member of the Board of Revenue by order dated 22nd October, 1970. While dismissing the said revision petitions the learned M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1989]73STC409(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is a revision under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984.2. M/s. Hukumat Rai Asudamal, respondent herein, carries on business as commission agent and is registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Act. During the assessment year 1974-75 and the period from 1st April, 1974 to 31st March, 1975 the respondent purchased tarameera, an oil-seed, valued at Rs. 4,49,663.07, but no tax was paid on the said transaction of sale of tarameera to the respondent in view of the fact that the respondent had given a declaration in form S.T. 17. The respondent delivered the said goods to M/s. Chhedi Lal Gaya Prasad of Bharatpur on whose behalf the said goods were claimed to have been purchased by the respondent. The assessing authority, namely, Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle 'E', Jaipur, included the said transaction of purchase of tarameera of the value of Rs. 4,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1989]73STC252(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is a revision under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984. The following two questions arise for consideration in this revision :1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled for exemption under Notification No. F. 5(31)FD/CT/ 72-16 dated 28th July, 1972 although he has employed servants for preparation of namkins, etc.2. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the fried and salted groundnut remains the same commodity, i.e., oil-seed.2. The non-applicant, M/s. Shanker Namkin Bhandar (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a partnership firm and owns a Namkin Bhandar. By notification dated 28th July, 1972, issued in pursuance of the third proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act the State Government prescribed that for the purpose of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 the limit ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988(2)WLN262
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. Though the above number of petitions are not covered by the same set of Rules, in as much as some are governed by the Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986 (for short here in after referred to as 'the Rules'), whereas others are not so governed, but a common question is involved in each of the writ petitions whether the practice of appointing Lecturers at the start of the academic session and terminating their services on the last day of the academic session, can be upheld and can be said to be in accordance with the Rules?2. The above number of first five writ petitions are from the Lecturers each of whom was appointed under Rule 29 of the Rules by making urgent temporary appointment. Smt. Shashi petitioner in writ petition No. 1247 of 1988 was for the first time appointed as Lecturer in History subject vide order date November 20, 1987 in the Government Lal Bahadur Shastri Post Graduate College Kotputli. She in fact joined her pos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1990ACJ118
R.S. Verma, J.1. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), by its award dated 14.2.1985 has held respondent No. 1 Brij Mohan Lal entitled to recover Rs. 25,500/-, jointly and severally from the appellant Rajasthan State Co-operative Dairy Federation (hereinafter called 'the Federation') and Haridas respondent No. 2, along with interest at 9 per cent per annum from 21.5.1980 till recovery. By this very award, it has dismissed the claim of aforesaid Brij Mohan Lal against respondent No. 3, the Pashchimi Rajasthan Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. (hereinafter called 'Pashchimi Sangh'), Jaipur Zila Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. (hereinafter called 'Jaipur Zila Sangh') and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the insurer'). Aggrieved the Federation has come in appeal.2. In a nutshell, the case of respondent No. 1 Brij Mohan Lal, as set out in his up-to-date amended claim petition, was that on 27.11.1979, at about 3 p.m., his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1989CriLJ326; 1988(2)WLN60
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. This revision petition has been filed challenging the conviction and sentences passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar, Under Section 304A, I.P.C.2. This revision petition came up for admission. Learned single Judge (Mrs. Kapur, J.) was of the opinion that it does not call for any interference in revision with regard to the merits of the case but she admitted the revision petition on the ground of sentence in view of a decision of this Court in Amar Lal v. State of Raj. (S.B. Criminal Revn. Petn. No. 65/83, decided on 6-5-87 : (reported in 1988 Cri LJ 1). When this revision petition came up for final disposal before Hon'ble V. S. Dave, J. after hearing the arguments at length, he passed detailed order dated 27-7-87 referring the following question for consideration by the larger bench,Whether the decision in the aforesaid case lays down a general proposition that in all automobile accident cases there should not be a lesser punishment than one year's im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1989]73STC138(Raj); 1988(2)WLN335
Milap Chandra, J.1. These two revision petitions involve a similar question and as such they are being disposed of by this common order. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer, made a reference under Section 15(1), Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Rajasthan Act') read with Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Central Act'). In pursuance of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act (Rajasthan Act No. 20 of 1984) (in short 'the Amendment Act'), it was treated as an application for revision under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Act as amended by this Amendment Act. The second Revision Petition No. 388 of 1985 has been filed under Section 13(6) of the Amendment Act against the order of the Revenue Board, Ajmer, dated 13th November, 1984. The facts giving rise to these revision petitions may be summarised thus.2. In Revision Petition No. 92 of 1987, an assessment order was passed on June 6, 1975 under the Central Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988(2)WLN75
Dinker Lal Mehta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th January 1988, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, in Sessions Case No. 25/86. Learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the present appellant under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropics Substance Act, 1985, to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In case of default in payment of fine, accused appellant was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. Prosecution story unfolded during the trial is that on 26th November, 1985 at about 4 A.M., ASI Bajrang Lal. Police Station Pushkar. accompanied by Constable Prem Singh and Mool Dan, left for patrolling duty in the Pushkar fair. While the two officials were having their Patrolling round, they were informed by an informant that one Hazari Gujar resident of Pagara who used to traffic in opium had brought opium and was around the Gujaron-ka-deora near the Brahmaji temple. On receiving this information all th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1988]71STC223(Raj)
M.C. Jain, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer, dated January 31, 1986, whereby the appeal of the department was dismissed.2. Two questions of law have been urged in the present revision petition :--(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty of Rs. 2,950 imposed under Section 6C(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. (2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the tax and penalty imposed in respect of sales made by M/s. Sardul Textiles Mills in its canteen account under Section 16(1)(c).3. The Commercial Taxes Officer by his order dated 12th October, 1976 determined the tax liability in respect of the canteen sales to the tune of Rs. 450 and imposed penalty of Rs. 900 for non-submission of the quarterly returns and further found that the assessee purchased silicate, tinopole and caustic soda to the tune of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!