Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003

6 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

CTO, ANTI EVASION, CIRCLE III, RAJASTHAN, JAIPURversusM/S PRASOON ENTERPRISES, JAIPUR

2019 INSC 40426 March 2019Dismissed

The State of Rajasthan (CTO) challenged the tax rate applied by M/s Prasoon Enterprises on mobile crane wire ropes, arguing that the ropes should be taxed at 12.5% under the residuary entry of Schedule V of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The respondent contended that the ropes are parts of mobile cranes and t

COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICERversusA INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

2015 INSC 85924 November 2015Dismissed

The Commercial Taxes Officer appealed against A Infrastructure Ltd's claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on raw material used to manufacture asbestos cement sheets. The assessing authority had disallowed the ITC, contending that the final product was exempted under Notification S.O. 377/2007, and therefore the goods were "

M/S U.P. ASBESTOS LIMITEDversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS

2025 INSC 115424 September 2025

The Rajasthan government issued Notification S.O.377 on 9 March 2007, exempting VAT on asbestos cement sheets and bricks containing at least 25% fly ash, provided the dealer began commercial production in the state by 31‑December‑2006 and the exemption lasted until 23‑January‑2010 (later extended). The appellants, manu

M/S. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

2020 INSC 45617 July 2020Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether Ultratech Cement Ltd. was entitled to a 75% capital investment subsidy under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2003 (RIPS-2003) for its Kotputli cement plant. The Court held that the scheme’s sub‑clauses (vi) and (vii) granting 75% subsidy were deleted before the company’s ap

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.versusCOMBINED TRADERS

2025 INSC 49616 April 2025Dismissed

The State of Rajasthan challenged the validity of sub‑rule (20) of Rule 17 of the Central Sales Tax (Rajasthan) Rules, 1957, which allowed the cancellation of Form C declarations issued by dealers on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation. The High Court held that the State lacked authority to make such a rule because i

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search