Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 378 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 384 NOMINAL INDEX TR Ramesh v The Commissioner, HR & CE and others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 378 P Pappu v The Sub Registrar, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 379 S.Srinivasan v The Assistant Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 380 M/s. Aqua Excel v. The State Tax Officer (Adjudication), Office of Commercial Tax Officer, Tirunelveli, 2024...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 378 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 384
NOMINAL INDEX
TR Ramesh v The Commissioner, HR & CE and others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 378
P Pappu v The Sub Registrar, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 379
S.Srinivasan v The Assistant Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 380
M/s. Aqua Excel v. The State Tax Officer (Adjudication), Office of Commercial Tax Officer, Tirunelveli, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 381
Muthukumar v State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 382
M.S. Mohamed Siddique & Co. v. The Assessment Unit/Verification unit/ Technical Unit/Review Unit Income Tax Department, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 383
Harris Jayaraj v The Joint Director and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 384
REPORT
Case Title: TR Ramesh v The Commissioner, HR & CE and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 378
The Madras High Court recently refused to quash an order leasing 2.50 acres of land belonging to Sri Somanathaswamy Temple in Kolathur to Sri Kapaliswarar Temple in Mylapore for 25 years to establish an Arts and Science College.
Justice M Dhandapani noted that on perusal, the impugned order appeared to be for a benevolent object. The court noted that it was not inclined to interfere at this stage when the petitioner had the option to raise his grievance before the appropriate authority. The court thus gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department with his objections/suggestions and directed the authorities to consider the same on merits.
Case Title: P Pappu v The Sub Registrar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 379
The Madras High Court recently observed that Rule 55A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, which gives powers to a Registrar to refuse registration had no statutory authority.
As per Rule 55A, The registering officer before whom a document relating to immovable property is presented for registration, shall not register the same, unless the presentant produces the previous original deed by which the executant acquired right over the subject property and an Encumbrance Certificate pertaining to the property obtained within ten days from the date of presentation.
Justice R Subramanian and Justice R Sakthivel observed that the Rule was introduced only to enable Registrars to refuse to register instruments indiscriminately. The court added that the Registrars were conferred certain powers under Section 68 of the Registration Act, and the power to issue any order needed to be consistent with the Act.
Case Title: S.Srinivasan v The Assistant Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 380
The Madras High Court recently observed that the expression money laundering, as defined under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act has a wider meaning and the provisions of the Act could be invoked against a person for mere possession of proceeds of crime. The court added that since Section 3 is wider, the court could not restrict its meaning to restrain authorities from invoking the provisions of PMLA.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete noted that the expression money laundering ordinarily meant placing, layering and integrating tainted property in the formal economy, since the Section has wider reach it would capture every process and activity dealing with proceeds of crime, directly or indirectly and not limited to happening of the final act of integration.
Case Title: M/s. Aqua Excel v. The State Tax Officer (Adjudication), Office of Commercial Tax Officer, Tirunelveli.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 381
The Madras High Court stated that if the assessee is able to demonstrate that the transaction is included in the GSTR-1 Return, the goods shall be released provisionally.
The Bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq directed the assessee to submit a copy of the GSTR-1 report, as it would reveal whether the subject transaction was disclosed as a zero-rated sale.
Case Title: Muthukumar v State and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 382
The Madras High Court has closed a habeas corpus petition filed against the illegal arrest and detention of workers agitating at the Samsung India unit in Chennai.
The bench of Justice PB Balaji and Justice G Arul Murugan closed the plea after noting the submissions of the Additional Public Prosecutor who informed the court that the arrested persons had already been let off on October 8th after the Sriperumbudur Judicial Magistrate refused to accept the remand.
Noting the submission of the APP that there was no illegal custody and that the persons had already been set at liberty, the court noted that no further orders were required in the habeas corpus plea. The court also noted that the necessary safeguards had already been put in place in an earlier order of the High Court laying down certain directions to be considered at the time of the strike.
Case Title: M.S. Mohamed Siddique & Co. v. The Assessment Unit/Verification unit/ Technical Unit/Review Unit Income Tax Department
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 383
The Madras High Court ruled that if an assessee does not take advantage of the opportunity to request a personal hearing from the department, they cannot later claim that they were denied a personal hearing.
The Bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that “……though the department has given liberty to the assessee to request for personal hearing, the assessee failed to avail such an option. Therefore, the question of violation of natural justice will not arise.”
The bench observed that after considering the reply, the assessment officer decided to take entire receipt as shown in the ITR as income of the assessee and decided to pass assessment order. On the other hand, the assessee filed the returns taking 28% as profit out of the total receipt in terms of Section 44A of the Act. When the (respondent) department rejected the reply of the assessee and decided to take entire receipt as income and proceeded to pass the assessment order, the department ought to have afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee.
Case Title: Harris Jayaraj v The Joint Director and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 384
The Madras High Court has disposed of a petition filed by musician Harris Jayaraj challenging a show cause notice issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DCGI).
Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice C Saravanan observed that a co-ordinate bench of the High Court had already ruled that show cause notices could not be challenged and the aggrieved persons could raise their objections before the adjudicating authority/assessing authority. The court thus held that the musician could raise his grounds and objections against the show cause notice before the adjudicating authority/ assessing authority/ revenue and the same could be decided on merits.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: V Shrinivasan v The Music Academy and Others
Case No: CS No. 194 of 2024
Late legendary singer MS Subbulakshmi's grandson has approached the Madras High Court challenging the grant of Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award to Carnatic vocalist TM Krishna.
The Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award was instituted by The Hindu group to honor the Late singer as a yearly accolade and was conferred on the “Sangita Kalanidhi' chosen by The Music Academy every year. This year, the two awards were conferred to TM Krishna in recognition of his musical excellence sustained throughout his long career.
V Shrinivasan, Subbulakshmi's grandson has now approached the Madras High Court challenging this. In his plea, Shrinivasan contended that Krishna has been making vile, vituperative, and scandalous attacks on Subbulakshmi on social media and has been maligning the reputation of the late singer. He alleged that Krishna has constantly trivialized the late singer's achievements by making it seem as though it was a reward for embracing “Brahmanism”. Thus, he questioned how the Music Academy could honor such a person who had criticized a Matriarch who had always worked for the cause of the Academy.