Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR1D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3233/2014 M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd. & anr. V/s The State of Rajasthan & ors. 2.D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3235/2014 M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd. & anr. V/s The State of Rajasthan & ors. 3.D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3236/2014 M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd. & anr. V/s The State of Rajasthan & ors. 4.D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3237/2014 M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd. & anr. V/s The State of Rajasthan & ors. 5.D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3238/2014 M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd. & anr. V/s The State of Rajasthan & ors. 6.D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3242/2014 M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd. & anr. V/s The State of Rajasthan & ors. 7.D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3243/2014 M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd. & anr. V/s The State of Rajasthan & ors. 8.D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3250/2014 M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd. & anr. V/s The State of Rajasthan & ors. Date of Order::- 19.12.2014 PRESENT HONBLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUNIL AMBWANI HONBLE MR.JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4790/2009 SHREE CEMENT LTD. V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN DTD. 11.10.20111/105IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4790/2009 Shree Cement Ltd. V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. Date of Judgment : 11th October 2011PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI REPORTABLE Mr.S.Ganesh, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr.Ramit Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Bapna, Advocate General and Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vineet Mathur, Lokesh Mathur, Mr.Sunil Beniwal, for the respondents. BY THE COURT -1. How negative executive interventions, lack of political will and wisdom can cause laggard, sluggish and distorted industrial growth in a State, though rich in minerals, lime stone in present case in the State of Rajasthan and sufferer is a cement manufacturing unit, will be borne out from what follows in this case. 2. Another caveat on legislative practices, particularly subordinate legislation and executive policy decisions and the decision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :ORDER: (1) S.B.CIVIL (VAT) REVISION PETITION NO.7/2012 A Infrastructure Ltd., Bhilwara versus Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Bhilwara (2) S.B.CIVIL (VAT) REVISION PETITION NO.18/2012 A Infrastructure Ltd., Bhilwara versus Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Bhilwara (3) S.B.CIVIL (VAT) REVISION PETITION NO.19/2012 A Infrastructure Ltd., Bhilwara versus Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Bhilwara (4) S.B.CIVIL (VAT) REVISION PETITION NO.20/2012 A Infrastructure Ltd., Bhilwara versus Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Bhilwara (5) S.B.CIVIL (VAT) REVISION PETITION NO.21/2012 A Infrastructure Ltd., Bhilwara versus Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Bhilwara (6) S.B.CIVIL (VAT) REVISION PETITION NO.22/2012 A Infrastructure Ltd., Bhilwara versus Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Bhilwara Date of Order :: 19th December, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.Vikas Balia ) Mr.Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :ORDER: (1) S.B.CIVIL (VAT) REVISION PETITION NO.7/2012 A Infrastructure Ltd., Bhilwara versus Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Bhilwara (2) S.B.CIVIL (VAT) REVISION PETITION NO.18/2012 A Infrastructure Ltd., Bhilwara versus Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Bhilwara (3) S.B.CIVIL (VAT) REVISION PETITION NO.19/2012 A Infrastructure Ltd., Bhilwara versus Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Bhilwara (4) S.B.CIVIL (VAT) REVISION PETITION NO.20/2012 A Infrastructure Ltd., Bhilwara versus Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Bhilwara (5) S.B.CIVIL (VAT) REVISION PETITION NO.21/2012 A Infrastructure Ltd., Bhilwara versus Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Bhilwara (6) S.B.CIVIL (VAT) REVISION PETITION NO.22/2012 A Infrastructure Ltd., Bhilwara versus Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Bhilwara Date of Order :: 19th December, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.Vikas Balia ) Mr.Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. ORDER (1)SB Civil Writ Petition No.2330/2014 (M/s Chachan Brothers Cotton Ginning Pressing Rice & Oil Mills v. State of Rajathan & Ors.) (2)SB Civil Writ Petition No.1713/2014 (M/s Sat Sahib Enterprises v. State of Rajathan & ORS.(3)SB Civil Writ Petition No.1726/2014 (M/s Balaji Industries v. State of Rajathan & Ors.) (4)SB Civil Writ Petition No.1727/2014 (M/s Sat Sahib Cotton Traders v. State of Rajathan & Ors.) (5)SB Civil Writ Petition No.1728/2014 (M/s Sat Sahib Cotton Processing Factory v. State of Rajathan & Ors.) (6)SB Civil Writ Petition No.2057/2014 (M/s Gurunanak Industries v. State of Rajathan & Ors.) (7)SB Civil Writ Petition No.2369/2014 (M/s Subh Laxmi Oil Industries v. State of Rajathan & Ors.) (8)SB Civil Writ Petition No.1919/2014 (M/s Chandrabhan Jugal Kishore v. State of Rajathan & Ors.) (9)SB Civil Writ Petition No.2196/2014 (M/s Navdurga Industries v. State of Rajathan & Ors.) (10)SB Civil Writ Petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1991)91CTR(Raj)49; [1991]191ITR494(Raj)
A.K. Mathur, J. 1. All these references mentioned in the schedule appended to this order involve a common question of law, and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment. Arguments were heard at the principal seat at Jodhpur as well as at the Bench at Jaipur.2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in all these references, the facts of D. B. Income-tax Reference No. 20 of .1984 : CIT v. Ambica Electrolytic Capacitors Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur, are taken into consideration for the convenient disposal of all these references :The facts giving rise to this reference are that the assessee received subsidy from the Central Government twice in different amounts. The Income-tax Officer allowed depreciation on building, plant and machinery after excluding these two amounts of subsidy. The contention of the assessee was that the subsidy was not given by the Central Government to meet the cost of assets directly or indirectly within the meaning of Section 43 of the Income-tax Ac...
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 : 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
Reported in : RLW2004(4)Raj2424; [2006]144STC271(Raj); 2004(5)WLC331
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This petition is filed challenging the order of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 1.1.1998 allowing the revision filed by the respondent, Assistant Com- mercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad, Raniwara, by setting aside the orders of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal dated 31.3.93 and restoring the orders of the ACTO dated 16.11.90 and the orders of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 7.1.91.3. These orders relate to levy of penalty Under Section 22-A (7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1954').FACTS:4. The facts which emerge from the proceedings are that on 1.11.90 at zero hours (12.00 AM), at the check post Abu Road, vehicle No. GJ 02/T 5721 carrying the goods was checked. On making a demand, the driver of the vehicle furnished GR No. 1 dated 31.10.90 issued by M/s Delhi Bombay Road lines, Abu Road. The consignor of the goods was shown to be M/s Sumit Marbles, Abu Road. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj682; 2005(1)WLC548
N.N. Mathur, J.1. Thousands of teachers by way of instant bunch of Writ petitions, as mentioned in Schedule appended to each petition, have challenged the Constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2004 and Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Rules, 2004 providing for selection of Teachers Gr.III by the Public Service Commission and have prayed for restoring the autonomy to the Panchayati Raj Institutions in the matter of selection & appointment of primary school teachers. Petitioner-teachers have also prayed for restoration of the Notification dated 14.7.2003 providing to fill-up the posts of Teacher Gr.III to the extent of 75% from Para Teachers/Shiksha Sahyogi and 25% from the open market. It is further prayed that their services be regularized as Teacher Gr.III, who have been in continuous service for a considerable time as Para Teacher/Shiksha Sahyogi.BACKGROUND FACTS:2. The factual matrix in juxtaposition with the relevant rules may be set out...
Tag this Judgment!