Actor Vijay's Entry Tax Case : Madras High Court Stays Single Bench Judgment Which Had Scathing Remarks

In a relief to popular Tamil actor Vijay, a division bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday stayed a single bench judgment which had passed adverse observations against him and had imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on him for filing a petition challenging the levy of entry tax on his Rolls Royce car.

Vijay had appealed to the division bench aggrieved by the "unjust and derogatory" remarks made by the single bench against him and against the acting community in general while dismissing his petition. His counsel Senior Advocate Vijay Narayan made it clear before the division bench that he was not challenging the entry tax demand, and was only challenging the scathing observations in the judgment.

While staying the single bench order, a division bench comprising Justices M Duraiswamy and R Hemalatha directed Vijay to pay the balance 80% entry tax within a week of demand challan issued by the tax department. Senior Advocate Vijay Narayan requested the bench to direct the department to issue the challan within a week, saying that he does not want the "issue to be hanging for long". Accordingly, the bench directed the department to raise the demand within a week.

The actor was challenging the order passed by a single bench of Justice SM Subramaniam on July 13, dismissing a writ petition filed by Vijay in 2012.  In the judgment, the single bench had made observations to the effect that one becomes a 'real hero' by promptly paying tax. The single bench had also taken a dig at the actor by saying that while his reel life characters were preaching tax compliance, in real life he was seeking exemption.

"These Actors are portraying themselves as champions to bring social justice in the society. Their pictures are against corrupt activities in society. But, they are evading Tax and acting in a manner, which is not in consonance with the provisions of the Statutes", the single bench had said.

Vijay, in his appeal before the division bench, said that such remarks were wholly unjustified and uncalled for.

The same judge has dismissed other cases involving luxury cars with one-page orders, but in case of Vijay he passed adverse remarks, senior advocate Vijay Narayan submitted before the division bench.

The actor's lawyer argued that every citizen is entitled to avail legal remedies to challenge the imposition of tax; to make derogatory remarks against a petitioner for merely availing a legal remedy is unjust.

"The learned judge has cast aspersions on me(Actor Vijay) by labelling him as an anti-national and has cast aspersions on the whole acting community. Out of 500 other similar petitions involving luxury cars, some even costlier, the case of Vijay cannot be picked out alone", Narayan submitted.

The senior counsel added that when the order was dictated in open court, it was a standard order of dismissal like the ones passed in the other similar cases, but when the judgment copy was uploaded, the petitioner was "shocked" to see the derogatory remarks.

"The adverse remarks created a negative publicity. This can be hurtful to any person", Narayanan submitted.

The senior counsel also referred to precedents such as State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandla Jaiswal, where Justice PN Bhagwati had urged that judges should follow restrain while making adverse remarks and banters and unwarranted observations should be avoided in judgments.