Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1986(2)WLN748
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. All the writ petitions mentioned in the Appendix 'A' are disposed of by this common order as common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ-petitions.2. For the convenient disposal of these petitions, the facts of the case in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2141 of 1984 Ghoomar Cafe v. State of Rajasthan are taken into consideration. The petitioner is carrying on his business as a sole proprietor in the name of Ghoomar Cafe at Ghas Mandi Road, Jodhpur. The petitioner is having a V.C.R. and T.V. in respect of which he has regularly paying the licence fee for the commercial use of the same. He further submits that he is using V.C.R. and T.V. for the entertainment of his customers. He submits that he is paying entertainment-tax in respect of the above V.C.R. and T.V. under the Rajasthan Entertainment and Advertisement Tax Act, 1957. He further submits that he displays the Video Cassette Films duly certified under the Act. He submits that he has been give...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987(12)ECC389; 1987(10)LC307(Rajasthan); 1986(26)ELT703(Raj); 1986(2)WLN612
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the Notification No. 150/85-CE dated 15th July, 1935 (Annexure-P).' It has further been prayed that the respondents may be directed not to modify or alter the excise duty relief as postulated under Notification No. 107/81-CE and No. 88/84-CE.2. The petitioner No. 1 is an existing company and it has its registered office at 7, Council House Street, Calcutta. The petitioner established two factories at Kankroli in the district of Udaipur for manufacturing tyres. By this writ petition the principal grievance is the withdrawal of the excise relief scheme which was issued for a specified period by the Central Government in order to encourage 'the new investment in tyre industry and to partially off-set the high cost of such new investment. Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner made two principal submissions that once the excise relief is given by the Central Government and on that basis the petitioner Company acte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1986)57CTR(Raj)185; [1987]168ITR364(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, C.J.1. The question which arises for determination in this reference relates to the interpretation and application of Section 5(l)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.2. The assessee is an individual who owned 3,505 tolas of gold ornaments prior to 1949 which were received by him from his father. The assessee sold 1,133 tolas of gold ornaments on various dates, retaining 2, 372 tolas of gold ornaments with him. When the question relating to the inclusion of the value of the said gold ornaments in the net wealth of the assessee arose in connection with his assessment to wealth-tax pertaining to the assessment year's 1959-60, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1967-68 and 1968-69, a plea was taken by the assessee that the said gold ornaments did not belong to him but they were the exclusive property of his wife, Smt. Pushpa Devi, to whom he had gifted the said gold ornaments in the year 1949 at the time of engagement with her. According to the assessee, the gift was made by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987(1)WLN358
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is plaintiff's first appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Dausa, dated 15-12-1979, dismissing the suit for declaration and arrears of salary.2. The plaintiff-appellant was appointed initially as literate Cleaner in Loco Shed, M how under the BB & CI Railway, on 11-10-1950. The BB & CI Railway was converted into the Western Railway in the year 1952 and all the employees of BB & Cl. Railway became the employees of the Western Railway. Thereafter, the plaintiff-appellant was posted as Ticket Collector on 27-4-1956 on his selection by the Railway Service Commission. His posting orders were passed by the DTS, Bandikui. Lateron, the plaintiff was further promoted to the post of Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) on 30th June, 1965, and further promoted as Guard on 23-12-1966. The plaintiff-appellant was convicted for the offence Under Section 420/471 IPC on 7-2-1967 by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1987Raj180; 1986(2)WLN653
G.N. Bhargava, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif Jaipur City (East).2. It is not necessary to deal with the facts of the case except saying that the trial Court by its judgment dated 24-9-71 decreed the suit of the plaintiff Bholanath, for possession, demolition and perpetual injunction.3. Bholanath expired on 5-10-71. The defendant, Pooranmal feeling himself aggrieved from the judgment of the trial court, preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, impleading Shambhunath, Laxmidevi, and Poonadevi ; son, widow, and daughter, respectively of Bholanath (plaintiff) as respondents. The appeal was filed on 3-12-71. On 10-5-72, one of the respondents, Sambhunath, filed an application stating that all the legal representatives of Bholanath have not been brought on record, and Sitadevi, Devip...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1988]68STC145(Raj)
A.K. Mathur, J.1. In all these writ petitions common question of fact and law are involved, therefore they are disposed of by a common order.2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are doing the business of dyeing and printing of cloth at Pali. For the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1872 of 1985 (Lodha Fabrics, Pali v. State of Rajasthan) are taken into consideration.3. All these writ petitions have been directed against the assessment orders by the Commercial Taxes Officer. At the outset the question is that whether such writ petitions should be entertained or not. Mr. K.C. Bhandari, learned Counsel for the Revenue, has brought to my notice that it is settled proposition of law which has been laid by their Lordships of the Supreme Court repeatedly that under the taxing statutes when complete machinery has been created then extraordinary jurisdiction should only be involved in extraordinary circumstances. In normal course t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1987]64STC12(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This application was moved under Section 15(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act' for directing the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan to state the case and to refer this Court the question of law arising out of its order dated 30th March, 1978. During the pendency of this application the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act No. 20 of 1984) was enacted whereby the provisions of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act were substituted and instead of reference to this Court a provision was made for revision by the High Court in special cases. By Section 13(10) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984, it was provided that every application under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act pending before the High Court on the date of coming into force of the said amendment shall be deemed to be an application for revision under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1986(2)WLN482
Suresh Chandra Agrawal, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, Ravindra Nath, has assailed the order (Ex. 46) dated 16th March, 1984 passed by the Governor of Rajasthan where by the petitioner has been dismissed from service by way of punishment for misconduct.2. The petitioner was a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (RFDS). During the period from October, 1980 to February, 1981 he was posted as District & Sessions Judge, Merta. A complaint was made by one Jorawarmal against the petitioner and on the said complaint a preliminary inquiry was conducted by M.C. Jain, J. After the said preliminary inquiry it was decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the petitioner was suspended by order (Ex 2) dated 2nd December, 1981. The Chief Justice nominated Dr. K.S. Sidhu J. as the disciplinary authority to hold the inquiry and the disciplinary authority issued a memorandum (Ex. 3) dated 29th January, 1982 to the petitioner whereby the petitioner w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1987]64STC146(Raj); 1986WLN(UC)347
ORDERA.K. Mathur, J.1. In all these writ petitions a common question of law is involved, therefore they are disposed of by a common order.2. For the convenience of disposal of these writ petitions, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 402 of 1985 : Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (Unit Bhilwara) v. Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Udaipur and Anr. are taken into consideration.3. The petitioner-company by this writ petition has challenged that definition of 'sale' as contained in Section 2(o) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954), may be declared as ultra vires and invalid. It has also prayed that Section 3(2)(a) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1960 may also be declared ultra vires and may be struck down, being violative of Articles 19(1)(g), 301 and 304 of the Constitution.4. The petitioner, M/s. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., is a public limited company and owns two textile units, (i) one at Gulabp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987(1)WLN113
Panna Chand Jain, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (here in after referred to as the Act) filed by the claimant, Prahladi Devi and Ors. against the order dated 25th March, 1972, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 69, 1970, by the learned Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur.2. Briefly slated the facts of the case are that the proceedings for acquisition of land in village Bhojpur and chak Sudarshanpura for planned development of Jaipur City were initiated at the instance of the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur. The Government of Rajasthan issued Notification dated May 13, 1960, under Section 4 of the Act. After taking further steps as prescribed, the notification under Section 6 of the Act, dated May 3, 1981, was also published. Notices were duly served on the claimants The claimants submitted the details of their claims. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 150,575 00. The Land Acquisition Officer by his order dated January 9, 1964...
Tag this Judgment!