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
 GSTR-3B deadline expired: File now to avoid input tax credit loss, GST registration cancellation
 ITR Filing: Income tax department shortens time limit for condonation of delay What it means for taxpayers
 CBDT launches campaign to intimate taxpayers on undeclared foreign assets in ITR
 ITR AY2024-25: CBDT launches campaign for taxpayers to report income from foreign sources
  CBDT comes out with FAQs on Direct Tax Vivad se Viswas scheme 2024
 CBDT weighs overhaul of designations for income tax officials to secure better clarity
 Direct tax-GDP ratio at millennial high in FY24
 CBDT comes out with FAQs on Direct Tax Vivad se Viswas scheme 2024
 Tax filing: How to choose the right ITR form
 Income Tax Return: How to maximise your tax refunds while filing ITR?
 Last date for filing income tax return (ITR)

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 2025 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting