Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2002]126STC372(Raj); 2000(2)WLN509
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The question which has been addressed to this Court for determination is whether production of the stone ballast (gitti) by breaking the large stones amounts to manufacturing, so as to make the respondent unit entitled to claim benefit of exemption from payment of tax under the New Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989 (hereinafter called the 'Incentive Scheme') in the light of definition of 'manufacture' given in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 which governs the present case.2. The respondent, Prakash Udhyog, had made an application on November 17, 1997 under the Incentive Scheme for the purpose of sanctioning issue of eligibility certificate for exempting its new industrial unit which started commercial production and has applied for eligibility certificate on November 17, 1997. The new unit was shown to be engaged in the production of 'stone, grits/chips' for which large stones are used as raw material. 'Stone grits' is known commonly in this part of the country as '...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. This income-tax appeal has been filed by the appellant-assessee challenging the judgment dated 20.03.2009, of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench 'B' Jaipur, (for short, 'the ITAT') whereby the ITAT upheld the judgment dated 26.03.2007 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Alwar (for short, 'the CIT'), who in its turn, confirmed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. Factual matrix of the case is that on 06.05.2002 a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') was conducted at the business premises of the appellant-assessee in which it was found that the books of account had been written only up to 26.04.2002 and no entries were thereafter made till the date of survey. The appellant-assessee, however, on 02.12.2003 filed its return of income declaring income of Rs.6,69,050/- along-with audited balance-sheet, profit and loss account tax audit report dated 22.11.2003. Since the survey was carried out under Section 133A ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2005)197CTR(Raj)1; [2006]283ITR486(Raj); 2004(3)WLC425
Rajesh Balia, J.1. In this special appeal, a short but interesting question that arises for consideration is whether the blending of different types of tea by the assessee amounts to production of a thing or an article by an industrial undertaking within the meaning of expression as used in Section 80IB of the IT Act, 1961, though it may not amount to manufacture of goods in the sense of bringing into existence altogether a new and different thing as known differently in the commercial parlance in the market where tea is transacted.2. The appellant-assesses has set up a small-scale industrial unit in the backward industrial area of Banswara. The appellant's case is that it purchased tea leaves powder/granules and these tea leaves are collected by marking the name of garden and lot number. The samples of available quality are dispatched to the 'Blend Master' who after going through his own process, suggests the mixing ratio and process of mixing for making the perfect blend of tea. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj1700; 2005(1)WLC387
Anil Dev Singh C.J.1. These three appeals by the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Secondary & Higher Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi; the Coordinator, All India Engineering/Pharmacy/Architects Entrance Examination (AIEEE), Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi; and All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi, are directed against the judgment & order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated April 02, 2004, rendered in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2379/2003, whereby the Policy Notification dated October 18, 2001 of the Government of India, Department of Secondary Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development relating to framework for admission to engineering, architecture and pharmacy courses at undergraduate level in the country; the letter o the University Grants Commission dated December 06, 2001 informing the various institutions that the Government of India had resolved to conduct an All India...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2000(2)WLC524
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J. 1. A large number of writ petitions have been filed challenging the Constitutional validity of the provisions of Rule 73 of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1955, as amended vide Notification dated 26-2-1977, being substantive ultra-vires and for quashing the order dated 1-3-1997 issued by the Inspector General of Stamps providing, the applicability of the amendment even in pending revisions. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners purchased a piece of agricultural land measuring 20 Biswas comprise of Aaraji No. 1028 at village Rayala, district Bhilwara, for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/-. The said document was presented before the Registering Authority (respondent No. 3) for registration. However, the Authority took the view that the sale-deed, purported to have been made of an agricultural land, was in fact, sale deed of a commercial plot and the value of the land in dispute was required to be computed at the commercial rate and, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. Instant petition has been filed by M/s BD & P Hotels (India) (P) Ltd who was in possession of Hotel Mukandgarh Resorts since 04/08/2009 on having purchased lease hold rights through respondent-6 (secured creditor) under Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), but has been dispossessed on 09/03/2010 pursuant to warrant of possession issued by the Executing Court, Jhunjhunu on 05/03/2010 in Execution Appl.No.35/2009) at the behest of decree holder in execution of Arbitral Award dt. 15/02/2009 passed for recovery of possession and arrears along with interest against its lessee (respondent-5), possession whereof was taken over by secured creditor (TFCI-respondent-6) with whom lease hold rights were mortgaged creating security interest by respondent-5 with the consent of lessor (respondent-2 to 4) on 22/08/2008. Question arising for consideration in instant case is as to whether petitioner in whose favour lease hold...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2006Raj265; II(2007)BC409; 2006(4)WLC455
ORDERDinesh Maheshwari, J.1. These two writ petitions being related to the same matter of sale of assets of M/s. Priya Plastics (the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 2359/1989) by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (RFC), and having interconnected facts, have been heard together and are taken up for disposal by this common order. The matter encompasses background facts and so also subsequent developments and could be taken into comprehension as follows:Facts as stated in Writ Petition No. 2359/1989.2. The petitioner of the writ petition No. 2359/1989 is the borrower of loan from RFC and defaulter in repayment. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the writ petition are the RFC and its Deputy General Manager respectively, the respondent No. 3, Shri Rani Dan Soni has been one of the bidders for purchase of the assets of the petitioner M/s. Priya Plastics, and his bid of Rupees 1,76,000/- forms one limb of contentions in these cases; the respondent No. 4 Shri R.D. Sharma is the subsequent bidder...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1969Raj192
Dave, C.J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs whose money suit was decreed by the trial court, viz., CivilJudge, Sojat, but dismissed by the District Judge, Pali, on the defendants' appeal.2. The suit was based on a Khata-entry Ex. 1 appearing in the plaintiff's account books. The said entry was in the following language:--[Original in Marwadi Omitted -- Ed.Rendered in English, it would read as follows:-- 'Account of Shah Kunanmalji Lalchandji of Marwar Junction of the year S. 2009.6022/-Balanceto be received as per account givenabove. Rs. 6022/-in figures Rupeessix thousand and twenty-two only.Kati Sudi 1 Smt. 2009. Signed Bhandari Jeevraj. Balance struck in thepresence of Kunanmal Lalchand. SignedLalchand For Kunanmal Lalchand. Rs. 6022/- in figures Rupees six thousand andtwenty-two are to be paid. Signed Misrimal KunanmaL Signed Premraj.Witness- Sewag Pukhraj atRanawas at the instance ofMishri Mal of Marwar Junction in his presence.'The defendants contested the suit on seve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1990LC375(Rajasthan); 1991(52)ELT18(Raj)
S.N. Bhargava J.1. These writ petitions involve similar facts and questions of law, so they are being disposed of by a common order. Taking the facts of Writ Petition No. 1849/1989.2. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has got several units throughout the country, out of which two units, known as Shri Ram Vinyl & Chemical Industries and Shri Ram Fertilizer and Chemicals, are located at Kota, in the State of Rajasthan. Shri Ram Vinyl & Chemical Industries has been manufacturing P.V.C. Resin, P.V.C. Compound, P.V.C. Compound MBs, Caustic Soda etc. It has been regularly paying all the demands and dues under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner has been selling nearly 70% of its manufactured articles at the factory gate and the remaining nearly 30% through its various depots at Ahmedabad, Calcutta, Delhi, Indore, Nasirabad, Kundi, Ludhiana, Madras and Meera. The excise duty is being paid regularly. For the first time, the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1981Raj139
ORDERGuman Mal Lodha, J. 1. 'Price Control' with 'Cheers' or 'tears' is the real question though it has been camouflaged in legal constitutional debate.2. These 324 writ petitions have been filed by the Sugar Dealers of Rajasthan challenging the validity of the Levy Sugar Supply (Control) Order, 1979 (hereinafter to be called as 'Levy Sugar Order') Sugar Retention and Sale (By Recognised Dealers) Order, 1979 (hereinafter to be called as 'Retention Order'), Sugar Price (Determination of 1978-79) Order 1979 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Price Determination Order'), and the various directions issued therein, including the orders issued by the Collectors of the various places and other administrative orders demanding sale of 65% of Sugar stock, to the State Government. Earlier 231 such writ petitions were heard by the Jaipur Bench of this Court and on March 14, 1980 by a composite order, this court dismissed those writ petitions and while doing so, adjudicated the controversies raised ...
Tag this Judgment!