Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1986Raj131; 1986(1)WLN23
ORDERP.C. Jain, J. 1. This petition is directed against Rajasthan State Electricity Board and its concerned officers wherein the petitioner has averred that he being the brother of late the Ruler of Jodhpur Maharaja Hanwant Singhji was entitled to the facilities of free supply of electricity and water under the letter of theGovernment of India No. E-4/P/49 dated March 24, 1949. The aforesaid facility was cancelled by the Government of Rajasthan by its letter No. F. 22 (36) GAB 67 dt. Sept. 8, 1967 from April 1, 1967, According to the petitioner after the cancellation of aforesaid facilities from April 1, 1967, the petitioner began paying electric charges regularly. The petitioner further averred that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board was constituted in the year 1957 and all the previous dues of Electricity Department of the State Government vested in the Board vide Section 60(1) of the Electricity (Supply) Act. 1948 (Central Act No. 54 of 1948) The respondent No. 4 (Assistant Engin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1987]66STC373(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. At the instance of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Chittorgarh, the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board' herein) has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court, which are said to arise out of its order dated June 21, 1977 :(i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the explanation to Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax rules, the second proviso to Section 2(s) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act is attracted in respect of the turnover of gum not resold within the State as per the declarations given in form S.T. 17 ?(ii) Whether the only remedy open to the department following the use of form S.T. 17 for a purpose other than that declared was to proceed under Section 16(1)(k) ?(iii) Whether the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that no tax was payable by the dealer because of the provisions of Section 5A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act ?2. The regular assessments of the dealer-assessee (respondents) in res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1987]166ITR325(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. These thirteen references before us involve common questions and so, they were heard together and it will be convenient to dispose of them by a common judgment.2. For proper appreciation, we may notice the facts leading to DBWT Reference No. 27 of 1977 (Smt. Ganga Devi v. CWT) in which the Tribunal has made a consolidated reference in respect of the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74.3. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur ('the Tribunal' herein), has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper interpretation of the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, read with the relevant rules, the Tribunal was right in holding that the agricultural lands belonged to the firm and that exemption under Section 5(1)(iva) ought to be given effect to while working out the net wealth of the firm in accordance with Rule 2 and that the agri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987WLN(UC)751
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. A tiny village girl of 8 years was literally in a pool of blood on account of the forcible sexual intercourse by accused Puran. Yet the prayer by the learned Counsel for the appellant is for releasing him on probation or giving benefit of the Children Act.2. Fairly enough Mr. Soral, learned Counsel for the appellant, has not entered into the controversy about the facts of rape. His anxiety is that Puran must as treated be a child and then released on probation. Mr. Soral, learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the provisions of Rajasthan Children Act, and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satto v. The State of U.P. : 1979CriLJ943 ).3. A child has been defined under the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970 here in after called as the Act, 1970 to mean a boy who has not attained the age of 16 years. Section 21 provides that when a child commits an offence then either he may be sent to special school or may be allowed to go home after advice or admon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1987]63STC78(Raj)
Mal Lodha, J.1. These 7 applications before us have been filed by the dealer-assessee under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. 29 of 1954), for short ('the Act' herein), for a direction to the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board'), to state the case and refer the questions of law arising out of its common order dated 2nd March, 1979, passed in 7 revisions. These applications were pending on 1st May, 1985, when the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984 (No. 20 of 1984) ('the Amendment Act'), had come into force. According to Section 13(10) of the Amendment Act, these applications are deemed to be applications for revision under Section 15 of the principal Act as substituted by the Amendment Act. We have heard them as revisions and propose to dispose them as such.2. The accounting years involved in these cases are 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1969-70 and 1970-71. The assessing authority levied purchase tax on ajwayan, sua, methi and pop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1986(1)WLN256
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. The two applications have filed one for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment of this Court dated 29th November, 1985 rejecting the appeal of the accused Jagdish and enhancing the sentence from life imprisonment to death sentence and the second one, is for suspension of execution of sentence of death.2. On November 29, 1985, we have rejected the appeal of the accused Jagdish and enhanced the sentence of life imprisonment to the sentence of death, for committing the offence under Section 302 IPC on the proved allegations that he burnt his wife, Smt. Chand, alive by pouring kerosene oil on her body and setting fire.3. So far as the first application for grant of leave to appeal is concerned, Shri M.I. Khan, learned Government Advocate assisted by Shri S.B. Mathur, the learned Additional Government Advocate, opposed it on the ground that a certificate is to be issued certifying that the case is fit one to appeal and it can only be granted un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1986(1)WLN158
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. An important question is involved in this writ petition as to whether a Representative Union has a right to be recognised by the employer as the only authorised agent for collective bargaining ?2. As ususal there are more than one union of workmen employed in Chandmari Copper Project Khetri of Hindustan Copper Ltd. (for brevity 'Industry'). Nearly, 300 workmen are employed in the Industry. The petitioner union, Hindustan Copper Mazdoor Sangh, is affiliated with Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC), whereas respondent No. 4, Khetri Tamba Sharmik Sangh, is affiliated with All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC). For brevity the petitioner union shall be referred to as the Representative Union, and respondent No. 4 as the Union. The representative union is registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for short, the Act) and its registration No. is 36/77. It claims the membership of about 250 workmen out of 300 workmen working in the Industry. The case ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1986]61STC247(Raj)
S.S. Byas, J.1. These are four connected references and in view of Section 13(11) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984, these references are now to be treated, heard and decided as revisions under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, as substituted by the Amendment Act.In these references, the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, has referred the following common questions of law to this Court for its opinion :(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue is justified in holding that pachrangi dori is a commodity falling within the purview of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, pachrangi dori would be taxable at 2 per cent during the relevant periods as declared goods under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act read with Section 15 or at the general rate of 7 per cent for unclassified goods ?2. The facts involved in all these references are common exce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1987]64STC375(Raj); 1986(2)WLN48
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. In order to appreciate the question of law that arises for our consideration in this case, we may notice the relevant facts.2. The dealer-assessee M/s. New Laxmi Engineering and Trolley Works, Jodhpur, submitted an application under Section 12A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. 29 of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on February 28, 1978, to the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, for determining the following disputed question :Whether the word 'trailer' includes traetor-trolleys also Whether tractor-trolleys are exempt under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act being agricultural implements ?3. The Additional Commissioner, vide his order dated June 6, 1978, found that they are included as trailer vide entry No. 7 of Notification No. F. 4(64)/FD/Gr. IV/77-56 dated September 6, 1977 and so the rate of tax of trolley of tractor shall be 10 per cent. A revision was filed by the dealer-assessee before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1987]65STC356(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. These two references involve identical questions and, therefore, they were heard together and it will be convenient to dispose of them by a common order.2. This Court by its order dated 2nd February, 1980, directed the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board' herein), to state the case and make a consolidated reference in both the cases on the following question :Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that 'neel' (ultramarine blue) is not included in the term 'pigment' and is as such taxable at the general rate of 7 per cent ?3. The dealer-assessee deals in 'neel' (ultramarine blue) and chemicals. It is a firm and is registered dealer under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. 29 of 1954) (for short 'the Act' herein). In respect of the periods, under consideration, the assessing authority assessed the sale of 'neel' (ultramarine blue) by the assessee to sales tax at the rate of 12 per cent by hol...
Tag this Judgment!