Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« Direct Tax »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Net direct tax collections exceed 2023-24 target
 Govt kicks off direct tax code revision
 ITR 2024 25 Check tax department s update on TDS and refunds
 Income Tax: Why did some taxpayers receive notice for discrepancy in house rent receipt? IT Dept explains
 Income tax exemption: 4 financial instruments you can still invest into before March 31
 CBDT drops small tax demands but not TCS, TDS claims
 ITR Refund: Awaiting money from Income Tax? Here's why you have not yet received your amount
 Income Tax Notice: What to do if you receive a Section 143 (1) notice from taxman?
 Average tax return processing time cut to 10 days: CBDT
 7 types of Income Tax Notice ITR filers may receive for AY 2023-24
 ITR filing: Do these advance preparations before filing your income tax return

HC imposes costs on former Income Tax official
July, 08th 2017

The Madras High Court Bench here on Friday imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 on a former Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) for filing a public interest litigation petition to refrain Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) from establishing a liquor shop adjacent to a marriage hall owned by him at Pattukottai-Peravurani Main Road in Thanjavur district.

Terming the case as a “private interest litigation,” a Division Bench of Justices K.K. Sasidharan and G.R. Swaminathan directed the retired CCIT P.S. Chellaphan of Tiruchi to pay the amount of cost imposed on him to the Superintendent of Sathya Ammaiyar Memorial Government Orphanage at Madurai for undertaking welfare measures for the inmates of the home.

The judges also made it clear that in case of failure to pay the amount, the Thanjavur Collector would be at liberty to recover the costs under the Revenue Recovery Act. They pointed out that it was not the case of the petitioner that the proposed establishment of the liquor shop was within the prohibited distance from educational institutions and places of worship.

On the other hand, the petitioner had only contended that “if a TASMAC shop is established near our marriage hall, it will cause hectic nuisance to the public and also endanger the normal life of each and every one residing in that area and crosses that area. If the respondents are not restrained from granting permission to establish the shop adjacent to Sri Periyanayaki Hall, the entire public will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.”

Rejecting his submissions, the judges said that it was the prerogative of TASMAC to establish liquor shops in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules of 2003. In such circumstances, the petitioner could not be allowed to espouse his private cause in the guise of a PIL petition, they observed during the course of hearing.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting