Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1995Raj78; 1994(2)WLC244
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of Ayurvedic Medicines, Syrups. Hair-oils, and Tooth-paste etc. and is having its factory at Sahibabad (UP) and Alwar (Rajas-than). A warehouse is situated at Plot No. 7 Bais Godam within the limits of Municipalities Corporation, Jaipur. The. goods manufactured at the aforesaid two factories are transported to the warehouses at Jaipur from where part of the said goods are sold for local consumption and part of the same are re-exported outside the Municipal limits for sale, use or consumption in different villages, cities and towns in Rajasthan. The dispute has arisen because the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur is collecting the octroi duty on all the goods which are bought within the municipal limits of Jaipur at the said warehouses,2. It is submitted that a sum of Rupees 68,995/- has already been collected which is not due in accordance with law and that the petitioner was not allowed the current account facility. By the order dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:(i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof quashing and setting aside the Proclamation dated 22-02-2011 issued by the Respondent No.2;(ii) that the petitioner has a prima facie strong case on merits as would be evident from the averments made in the writ petition.(iii)that an interim order of injunction may be passed restraining the respondents, their servants and agents, from giving any effect to and/or in pursuance of Proclamation dated 22-02-2011, and all proceedings thereunder and/or in pursuance thereof till the disposal of this writ application;2. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 entailed in the business of providing high value multipurpose, specialized and general infrastructure equipment on rental for spe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2001Raj286; [2001]250ITR789(Raj); 2001(4)WLN217
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. The present writ petition ana other writ petitions (mentioned in the appended Schedule) raise an interesting question of law in the matter of the one-time tax scheme introduced by way of insertion of Section 5(1B) of the Finance Act, 1989 (Act No. 6 of 1989).2. The questions for our consideration are :'(1) Whether, fresh assessment is permissible under the law in respect of the land held by the previous owner who had exercised the option in terms of one time tax scheme prescribed by Section 3(1B) of the Rajasthan Land and Buildings Tax Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), even though the certificate exempting the aforesaid land from the future tax liability had been issued by the competent officer of the Department ?(2) Whether, the tax under the Act is upon a land or building or both separately as units and when the property in question has already been subjected to tax, the question of any further tax liability under the Act can arise merely on acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1993(67)ELT483(Raj)
Rajesh Bhalla, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm, having an industry of re-rollers, manufacturing stainless steel product known as 'Patta'. The product manufactured by the petitioner was initially classified as 'sheet' or 'strips', falling under Sub-item (ii) of the Tariff Item No. 26AA of the Tariff Schedule, as it was then existing, under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1944'). The petitioner claimed that the product manufactured by it properly fall to be classified under Sub-item No. (ia) of the erstwhile Tariff Item No. 26AA. The petitioner based his claim on a decision given in the case of M/s. CD. Industries, by the Appellate Tribunal on 1-6-1984 and in the case of M/s. Ae Vee Iron & Steel Works Private Limited, Bombay, dated 29-5-1985. The Assessing Authority, namely, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jodhpur, rejected the assessee-petitioner's claim. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals). The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988(1)WLN660
Milap Chandra, J.1. These two sales-tax revisions have been filed under Section 15, Rajasthan Sales Tax Act (herein after to be called 'the Act') against the common order of the learned Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer (here in after to be called 'the Tribunal' dated December 12, 1985. The facts of the case giving rise to these revisions may be summarised thus:2. The sales of 'Desi Sweetmeats and Namkins' were exempted from tax vide Notifications No. F 5(16) EDCT/69-13 and 14 dated April 1, 1969 issued under Section 4(2) of the Act (printed at Serial Nos. 165 & 166 of Volume II of Law of Sale and Purchase Tax in Rajasthan by Jai Kumar Jain). The Notification No. 14 relating to the 'Namkins' was withdrawn vide Notification No. F 5(24) FDCT/72-11 dated April 26, 1972 (printed at Serial No. 251). The Notification No. 13 relating to the 'Desi Sweetmeats' was also withdrawn by issuing a corrigendum to the said Notification dated April 26, 1972 vide Notification dated October 5, 1972 (pri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1994(1)WLC554; 1994(1)WLN652
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The above mentioned writ petitions and other similar petitions mentioned in Schedule 'A' annexed herewith are disposed of by a common order, as they are identical and common questions have been raised, which relate to imposition of lax on the transfer of property in goods involved in execution of a works contract. More precisely, the grievance of the petitioners is that in view of the decision of the apex Court of the country in M/s Gannon Dunkerley & Co. and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1983) 1 SCC 364 : (1993) 88 STC 204, whereby Section 5(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RST Act' or 'the Act') and Rule 29(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') were declared unconstitutional and void, no tax is leviable in the State of Rajasthan on the goods and materials used in a works-contract, but still the same is being charged by the Commercial Taxes Department and the awarders of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1996]217ITR404(Raj); 1995(2)WLN222
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated April 15, 1982, passed by the Commissioner of Income- tax under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-company paid advance tax amounting to Rs. 1,79,200 under Section 210 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as under :Rs.(i) 38,500On 14-6-1976(ii) 38,500On 13-9-1976(iii) 22,200Cheque given to the bank on 15-12-1976, and encashed on 16-12-1976, as per the certificate of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur.(iv) 45,216On 15-12-1976, by adjustment of refund due for the assessment year 1972-73 as a result of appeal effect. The letter for adjustment was given by the assessee on 15-12-1976. The date of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order was 8-11-1976. The total amount of refund for 1972-73 amounted to Rs. 1,22,125. The intimation about adjustment of refund was given to the assessee by the Income-tax Officer on 16-12-1976.(v) 34,784On 17-1-1977Total 1,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992(3)WLC354; 1992(2)WLN341
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the first proviso to Section 22(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 may be declared ultra vires to the extent it empowers the respondent No. 2 to sanction the retention of the seized account-books and documents being ultra vires of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. He has also prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 16.12.1987 (Annex. 7) may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to return the account-books and documents seized by the respondents. It is also prayed that the respondents may be restrained from recovering the demand in pursuance of Annexs. 13 and 14 and demand notices Annexs. 15 and 16 respectively.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm known and styled as M/S Khanna Electric Stores, Sri Ganganagar located at Sri Ganganagar. It is constituted by 5 partners Sarva Shri Kashmirilal, Sudarshan Kumar, Raghuveer, Jaswantlal and Smt. Rampyari. The petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(2)Raj1036
Satya Prakash Pathak, J.1. The first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.8.2003 passed by learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, in Civil Suit No. 114/2002 (22/1999) (47/1998)-Baxis Singh v. Mst. Gurdev Kaur and Anr. whereby the suit against defendant No. 1 was decreed with cost and it was ordered that the Defendant No. 1 shall get the sale-deed in respect of the disputed land written and executed at the expenses of the plaintiff and shall get it registered before the competent officer within a period of two months from the date of the order. It was further ordered that on Defendant No. 1's failing to do so within the specified period the plaintiff shall have the right to get the sale-deed written and executed and getting it registered in his favour through the Court.2. The facts of the case inter alia stated in the suit filed by Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 Baxis Singh in the year 1998 against Mst. Gurdev Kaur for specific perfor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(3)Raj1755; 2002(5)WLN269
Balia, J.1. The common issue raised in all these cases is the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Regulation of Appointments to Public Services Rationalisation of Staff Act, 1999 (hereinafter called Act of 1999). Various provisions of the Act more particularly Sections 2(v), 9, 11 and 19 of the Act are being assailed as ultra vires. Consequent relief has been asked in each petition, as we shall notice later on, to quash the directions issued and order passed in pursuance there of under the provisions of Act of 1999.Brief View of Impugned Provisions 2. As per its preamble, the Rajasthan State Legislature enacted the Rajasthan (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff) Act, 1999 (hereinafter called, 'the Act of 1999') to regulate appointments in the public service and prohibit irregular appointments in offices and establishments under the control of the State Government, local authorities, public corporations and Universities etc. 3. In brief, the s...
Tag this Judgment!