HC to hear Vijay’s plea to take on file his appeal against single judge’s scathing remarks against him on Monday
[ad_1]
The dispense with application has been listed before the third Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and R.N. Manjula.
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court is slated to hear on Monday a plea made by actor C. Joseph Vijay to dispense with production of a certified copy of an order passed by a single judge recently dismissing his 2012 plea against collection of entry tax by the State government for a Rolls Royce Ghost car imported by him from England.
The dispense with application has been listed before the third Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and R.N. Manjula. Only after the Bench dispenses with the production of the certified copy, the writ appeal preferred by the actor against the single judge’s verdict would be numbered and listed for hearing before the same Bench.
As per the appellate rules, every appeal filed before a Division Bench must be accompanied by a certified copy of the order passed by the single judge. If such certified copy was not available immediately, the appellants must prefer a dispense with application and obtain the permission of the court to file the appeal on the basis of the web copy.
The appeal assumes significance since Justice S.M. Subramaniam of the High Court had directed the actor to remit the entire entry tax demanded by the commercial taxes department for the luxury car, along with costs of ₹1 lakh to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister’s Public Relief Fund (TNCMPRF), and report compliance before him by June 28.
Dismissing the actor’s writ petition pending in the court for the last nine years, the judge had criticised the actor for having filed the writ petition to “avoid” payment of entry tax for the car as per the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles to Local Areas Act of 1990 and observed that the affluent were expected to pay taxes promptly and punctually.
Further, highlighting that the State was dependant on collection of taxes from the affluent to implement various social welfare schemes for the poor, the judge had made a general observation that the actors who portray themselves as champions of social justice in their movies were evading taxes in real life and not adhering to the laws of the land.
[ad_2]
