Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988(2)WLN158
Jagdish Sharan Verma, C.J.1. This common order shall dispose of both the above references, which relate to the same assessee. Reference No. 1/82 relates to assessment years 1974-75 and 1978-79, while reference No. 2/82 relates to assessment years 1979-80.2. At the instance of the assessee the Tribunal has referred under Section 256(1)of the income-tax act, 1961 a common question of law arising out of the tribunal's order in respect of the above assessment years, for the decision of this court.3 The question of law as framed in Reference No. 1/82 is as under:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 8,506/-and Rs. 10,720/- pertaining to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1978-79 respectively under Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?The question of law as framed in Reference No. 2/82 is as following:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1989]74STC260(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This order shall also dispose of S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petitions Nos. 25 of 1987, 26 of 1987, 27 of 1987, 28 of 1987, 40 of 1987, 36 of 1987, 37 of 1987, 38 of 1987, 39 of 1987, 41 of 1987, 46 of 1987, 47 of 1987 and 45 of 1987 all of which involve for decision the same point.2. These revisions are against the common order dated 14th April, 1986 passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal in a bunch of appeals involving one common question which has been mentioned in the Tribunal's order as under :This set of appeals relating to the sales of eatables being dealt with, under this order, have one thing in common. They all relate to the period prior to 2nd February, 1983 on which the 46th Amendment to the Constitution came into effect. The assessees in all these cases are restaurants/canteens/eating houses serving food, snacks and beverages as their only or substantial business. 3. The gist of the Tribunal's order is that it holds that sales and services by restaurants...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988(2)WLN45
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. While the Civil Judge, Bikaner by her decree dated March 31, 1971 declared that the order dated July 17, 1962 of the defendant No. 1 (Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Napasar) and any other terminating the services of the plaintiff as Secretary was void and ineffective and that the plaintiff continued to remain in service and further passed a decree in plaintiff's favour for Rs. 5320/- on account of arrears of pay. but on the filing of Civil First Appeal No. 6 of 1971 by defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the District Judge. Bikaner by his decree dated February 11, 1975 reversed the decree of the Civil Judge in its entirety and dismissed the suit of Mahadeo plaintiff with costs throughout, leading the plaintiff to file the present second appeal in this Court.2. Shorn of all unnecessary details, it is an undisputed fact that Mahadeo plaintiff was Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Napasrar on 15 6-1960 and that by order dt. 17-7-62 of the defendant No. 1, services of the plaintiff w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1989Raj51; 1988(2)WLN487
N.C. Sharma, J.1.This second appeal is directed by the plaintiff-Company against the decree of the Additional District Judge, Kota, dated May 7, 1976 whereby the decree of the Munsif (South) Kota, dated December 16, 1974, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-Company for permanent injunction as against the respondent was confirmed.2. Facts leading of the filing of the second appeal are that M/s. J. K. Synthetics Ltd., Kota, is a public limited company, with its factory at Kota. The plaintiff-Company, manufactures nylon yarn in its factory. The nylon yarn manufactured is winded around the metallic cops and the nylon yarn is sent in this state outside municipal Limits of Kota to its customers. According to the plaintiff-Company, the purchasers of nylon yarn after using the yam return the cops to the Company. The returned cops are again utilised for winding up the nylon yarn for re-sale of the yarn. It was pleaded that it is a condition of sale with the customers that they would return the...
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 : 1988WLN(UC)219
P.C. Jain, J.1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners who are manufacturers in engineering goods, have challenged the Notification No. GSR 38 dated 28th May, 1974, by which new tariffs for the supply of electricity were introduced by respondent No. 2. The challenge of the petitioners is confined to minimum charge in respect of engineering industries.2. The facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass and may be stated thus.3. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board (here in after referred to as the Board), which is a corporation constituted by the State of Rajasthan under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, is supplying electricity to the petitioner's factories situated in Jaipur at High tension voltage of 11 KV. The facts of the cases are more or less similar, we, therefore, refer the facts of the case of M/s Ashok Foundry and Metal Works (P) Ltd., Jaipur v. The State of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 210/1975. When the petitioner M/s. Ashok Foundry and Met...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988(1)WLN256
Farooq Hasan, J.1. Three appellants in two appeals namely, Madho Behari Goyal (Cr. Appeal No. 226/1977), Brandawan Dass (B.D. Soni) and Gokuldas (Cr. Appeal No. 207/77) were tried for the offences under Sections 120B, 409, 477A, 463, 471 and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ('Act') read with Section 114, IPC and they were found guilty; and the learned Special Judge (C.B.I.) Rajasthan, Jaipur vide his judgment dated June 6, 1977 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:(1) Madho Beheri Goyal (Cr. Appeal No. 226/1977)Under Section 120B, 409 & 477A, IPC Five year's rigorous imprisonment oneach count;Under Section 465, IPC 1 year's rigorous imprisonment;Under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act 5 year's rigorous imprisonment with afine of Rs. 2,000/- in default 3 months'RI.(2) Brandavan Dass (B.D. Soni) (Cr. Appeal No. 207/77)Under Sections 120B, 409, 471, IPC Five year's rigorous imprisonment oneach count.Under Sections 465 & 411 IPC One year'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988(1)WLN574
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur under his judgment dated April 18, 1984 dismissed the appeal of the accused-petitioner both in respect of his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act) as well as his sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The said conviction was recorded and sentence was inflicted on the accused petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur under his judgment dated June 10, 1983.2. Hari Dutt Sharma PW 1 was the Food Inspector, Bharatpur on May 7, 1981. On that day he saw that the accused-petitioner was carrying milk for the purposes of sale and near Dak bungalow, Bharatpur, he (Hari Dutt Sharma) introduced himself to the accused-petitioner and disclosed his identity as Food Inspector and purchased 660 ml. milk after paying its price. The sample was divided...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988(1)WLN13
D.L. Mehta, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 14-11-1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur, convicting and sentencing the accused under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-.2. Shri R.N. Shukla, Food Inspector, checked the shop of the accused on 9-8-1974 and purchased 600 grams of wheat flour for analysis. Public Analyst reported that the sample is adulterated being not in confirmity with the prescribed standard of purety. The report of the Public Analyst is Ex.P. 4. The finding of the Public Analyst as under:3. For this reason the sample was found to be adulterated, Mr. Dhankar appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the judgment of the Court below on number of grounds including that outer-cover was not used. I do not find any force in the submissions made by Mr. Dhankar on merits and maintain the conviction. In the alternative,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988(1)WLN567
D.L. Mehta, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment and sentence passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, dated 8th November, 1984, in Appeal No. 74 of 1979 whereby the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 22nd December, 1976 the petitioner was taking two drums of milk. He was intercepted and checked by Shri Gopal Lal Saini, Food Inspector and 660 grams of she goat milk was taken by him as sample. It was divided into three equal parts and was packed in three fials, one fial was given to the petitioner. Sanction for the prosecution was also obtained. Public Analyst found the milk adulterated. Report of the Public Analyst is Ex. P 6. Public Analyst reported that the sample is adulterated by reason of abstraction of about 13% of its original fat. This report is dated 29th Januar...
Tag this Judgment!