Actor Vijay Rolls Royce Case: Madras HC Removes scathing remarks made by Single Judge bench on Tax Exemption [Read Order]

The Madras High Court has ordered to expunge the scathing remarks made by a single judge bench against actor Vijay in the case related to tax exemption for his Rolls Royce car.

The appellant, who had purchased an imported car, was insisted by the transport authorities to pay the entry tax before registering the vehicle. Hence, a Writ of Mandamus was filed by him. While dismissing the same, learned Single Judge had made certain observations / remarks, which according to the appellant, are disparaging and undeserving. Feeling aggrieved against the adverse remarks made by the Writ Court and for the expunction of the same, the above appeal is filed.

Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the adverse remarks are not at all necessary for just and proper disposal of the writ petition and such undeserving remarks were made in breach of principles of natural justice. The comments made by the learned Single Judge are sought to be expunged, in particular those made in the impugned order. The castigating remarks against the appellant, without affording an opportunity of hearing affecting his reputation, integrity and conduct, are wholly unsustainable and bad in law.

“Such adverse remarks are absolutely unnecessary for proper adjudication of the writ petition and it would affect the appellants future career,” Mr. Narayan added.

The division bench of Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq held that it is difficult to suggest that the petitioner had acted with malafide and with deliberate intention and thus, the observation made by the learned single Judge, apart from being unwarranted, are irrelevant to decide the issue. The order of the writ Court also overlooks the fact that the view/stand taken by the petitioner, insofar as the leviability of entry tax on imported vehicles is the view taken by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court and also the Judgment of the Madras High Court and the matter was finally resolved by a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after the Constitutional Bench of Nine Judges pronounced on the scope of Part XIII of the Constitution. The above sequence of litigation will clearly demonstrate that the appellant cannot be imputed with motive whatsoever and therefore, the disparaging remarks are clearly unwarranted.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.