Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-08-2006
Reported in : (2007)5VST12(P& H)
1. This petition seeks declaration of provisions of Section 61(2)(e) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, 'the HVAT Act'), as amended by the Haryana Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2004, to be ultra vires and for quashing of order of assessment dated November 8, 2004 passed by the Assessing Authority, Karnal (annexure P3).2. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, 'the 1973 Act') and the HVAT Act. The Assessing Authority made assessment for the year 2002-03 by including the turnover of sales of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (in short, 'DEPB') issued by the customs authorities under the DEPB Scheme.3. The contention raised in the writ petition is that right to credit of duty, as is granted under the DEPB Scheme, is not 'goods' and provisions under Section 61(2)(e) of the HVAT Act to the effect that tax is to be charged on sale or purchase thereof was beyond the legislative competence under entry 54, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Apr-05-2006
Reported in : (2006)143PLR432
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.C.M. No. 365-C of 1998:1. The legal representatives of appellant Jeet Ram, who had died on 5.4.1991, during the pendency of this Regular Second Appeal, filed by him have filed this application for re-calling the order dated 15.1.1998, passed by this Court, whereby the application (C.M. No. 4681-C of 1997) filed by them under Order 22, Rules 44, 9, and 11 C.P.C. for substituting them as legal representatives of deceased Jeet Ram appellant, after condoning the delay and setting aside the abatement of the appeal, was dismissed in their absence.2. It has been stated in the application that when the aforesaid application i.e. C.M. No. 4681-C of 1997 was called for hearing on 15.1.1998, counsel for the applicants was busy in arguments before a Division Bench, therefore, he could not appear at the relevant time. It has been further stated that in the order dated 15.1.1998, it has been mentioned that the applicants did not seek the condonation of delay in filing the appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-22-2006
Reported in : (2007)146PLR685; (2007)5VST308(P& H)
1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated February 28, 2005 (annexure P 6), passed by respondent No. 2, Excise and Taxation Officer, Information Collection Centre, Balongi District, Ropar.2. By the said order, penalty has been imposed on the petitioner by recording a finding that the petitioner attempted to evade tax, by declaring in the invoice, accompanying the goods under transport, that the goods were liable to tax at the last stage while as per provisions of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act'), the goods were liable to tax at first stage.3. Case of the petitioner is that it is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Act at Mohali. It deals in goods manufactured from cast iron and is also a consignment agent of Electro-steel Castings Limited, Kolkata (West Bengal) for cast iron items.4. On February 24, 2005, the petitioner sent one consignment of goods to a Pathankot dealer through Shiv Shakti Transport Company from its place of business, i.e....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-12-2006
Reported in : (2007)4PLR563
S.S. Nijjar, Acting C.J.1. On the request of the counsel for the petitioners, these writ petitions (C.W.P. Nos. 6099, 5437, 2839, 14371, 6258, 7683, 14137, 4818, 14370, 16951, 18572, 4457, 12540, 3768, 2897 of 2005) are taken up for final disposal, at the motion stage. This common judgment will dispose of all the aforesaid writ petitions, as the facts as well as the legal issues are identical in all the writ petitions.2. The petitioners seek the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue appointment letters to them as they have all been duly selected to the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch)(hereinafter referred to as the 'HCS (EB)' and/or to the Allied Services, pursuant to the result declared by the Haryana Public Service Commission -Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') on 30.12.2004. The petitioners also pray for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Notification dated 13.5.2005 (Annexure...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-21-2006
Reported in : (2006)143PLR272
M.M. Kumar, J.1. Although the petitioner has approached this Court on umpteen times yet her grievances have remained un-redressed. This is another petition filed by her under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for quashing order dated 20.5.2002 (P-18) whereby her representation seeking regularisation of her services has been rejected, A further prayer has been made to issue directions to the respondents to extend the benefit of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Swaran Kaur and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. C.W.P. No. 2117 of 1997, decided on 17.7.1997 (P-5). Accordingly, a direction has been sought to regularize the, services of the petitioner on the basis of the policy dated 4.3.1999 (P-l 1) with all consequential benefits such as fixation of pay, seniority and payment of arrears etc. to the petitioner.2. Brief facts are that the petitioner was registered with the Employment Exchange, namely the District Employment Officer, Bathinda, on 28.9.1992. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-03-2006
Reported in : (2006)143PLR23
Hemant Gupta, J.1. This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 2679, 2681, 2682 to 2686 and 2700 of 2005 arising out of ejectment petition filed by the respondent under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') against different tenants of the property owned by the said respondent in the urban area of Phagwara.2. It is the case of the landlord that he has purchased the property in dispute vide registered sale deed dated 3.3.1970. The said property has four shops facing Loha Mandi road whereas on the rear of the shops are the residential accommodation.3. The respondent-landlord has sought ejectment on the ground that he is a Non-Resident Indian and after staying abroad for a number of years, he has now come back to India and has decided to run his own business in the property in dispute after demolishing various construction.4. To controvert the said ejectment petition, the tenant contested the petition, inter alia, on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-07-2006
Reported in : (2007)147PLR673
Vinod K. Sharma, J.1. Present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.3.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri and order dated 19.7.2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Yamunanagar whereby the learned courts below have allowed the application for ad-interim injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondents.2. The plaintiff-respondents had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the present petitioner from installing any machinery for running and working any stone crusher for creating any public nuisance in the land measuring 46 kanals 9 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 35, Khatauni No. 62 bearing Khasra Nos. 14/A2, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 19 total Kittey 6 or in any part thereof, situated in the revenue estate of village Koli-wala, Hadbast No. 60, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamnunanagar as per Jamabandi for the year 2002-03 either themselves or through their employees, agents, re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-18-2006
Reported in : (2006)143PLR356
M.M. Kumar, J.1. This is plaintiffs appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') challenging the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that Goman Wanti (now deceased) was net owner of the house in dispute as her vendor Amar Nath was not entitled to pass any valid title to her by way of sale deed dated 4.12.1972 (Ex.PW-1/3) because the Power of Attorney in favour of her vendor Amar Nath was cancelled by way of cancellation deed dated 30.5,1962. After the aforementioned cancellation, the vendor of the plaintiff-appellant did not have any power to execute the sale deed in favour of Goman Wanti (now deceased). The findings of the learned lower appellate court in that regard are discernible from para Nos. 10 and 11 and the same read as under:10. The power of attorney on the record is Ex. P-1/1. It was executed by Darshan Singh in favour of Amar Nath son of Ram Rakha. It is dated 7.10.1960. Darshan Singh thereby...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-27-2006
Reported in : AIR2006P& H171; (2006)143PLR304
M.M. Kumar, J. 1. This is defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code'), challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff-respondent who is wife of defendant-respondent 2 Bhajan Singh is entitled to recover Rs. 4,000/- as arrears of maintenance from 1.9.1994 to 28.2.1995 @ Rs. 800/- per month with proportionate costs. The suit of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has also been decreed for declaration to the effect that from March 1995 onwards she is entitled to get maintenance @ Rs. 800/- per month from her husband. The amount of maintenance paid to her during pendency of the suit, on the basis of interim order is required to be adjusted and charge in respect of maintenance awarded to her has been created upon the land, fully described in the head note of the plaint. The suit with respect to setting aside the decree dated 12.11.1994 in case titled as Swaran Singh v. Bhajan Singh has ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-25-2006
Reported in : (2006)142PLR866
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.1. The defendant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 30.11.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Tract Court, Bathinda whereby the order dated 31.10.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bathinda dismissing the application of the plaintiff-respondents for interim injunction has been set aside and the petitioner was directed not to raise any further construction of the marriage palace till the disposal of the suit.2. In this case, the petitioner was raising construction of a marriage palace on his land after obtaining due permission from the Municipal Corporation, Bathinda. When the construction of the marriage palace was at progress, the instant suit was filed by the respondents alongwith an application for restraining the petitioner from raising the construction on the ground that the area in which the marriage palace is being constructed by the petitioner is surro...
Tag this Judgment!