Begin typing your search...
Relief for actor Vijay in case related to another imported car
The Madras High Court on Friday directed the State government not to proceed with coercive action against the actor Vijay for not paying entry tax and the penalty imposed for a car he had imported from the US in 2005.
Chennai
Justice C Saravanan passed the interim injunction after hearing a plea moved by the actor seeking a direction to quash the recovery notice issued by the assessment officer on December 17. Recording the submissions, the judge clubbed the matter along with other similar cases filed by noted music director Harris Jayaraj and Adyar Gate Hotels.
“The matter is adjourned to February 1 and no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner till then,” the judge said.
According to Vijay, the government demanded Rs 7.98 lakh as the entry tax and a penalty of Rs 30.23 lakh for the delay in paying it. “The assessment officer has come to a wrong conclusion with an order dated March 25, 2019, of the High Court on a writ petition preferred by the petitioner in 2015 for entry tax exemption. The division bench only upheld the liability of the entry tax imposed on the imported vehicles and did not direct to pay the entry tax,” he submitted.
He added that the assessment officer should have considered the provisions of section 8 (5) of the Entry Tax Act stipulating a period of three years from the expiry of the last date for filing of the return as the limitation for completing the assessment.
“Section 9 of the Entry Tax Act provides for reassessment prescribes a time limit of five years from the date of the order of the assessment. In the absence of any assessment orders within three years from the date of import of the car, the assessments have become barred,” he contended.
His counsel also cited two orders, one by the Madras High Court in 1999 and another by the Kerala High Court in 1999, holding that no entry tax can be imposed in respect of the imported cars.
He also noted that though Vijay had imported the car in 2005, it was sold to another person named Deepak Murali in 2009. “As the car is not under the petitioner’s possession since 2009, the assessment of entry tax and the consequential penalty is arbitrary and unjustifiable in the eye of the law,” the affidavit added.
Visit news.dtnext.in to explore our interactive epaper!
Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!
Click here for iOS
Click here for Android
Next Story