The Madras Supreme Court has sued actor Dhanush for seeking an exemption from entry tax on a Rolls-Royce car he imported in 2015. The common man pays taxes on everything from fuel to soap with no exemption to apply. This case is similar to that of actor Joseph Vijay, who was called “anti-national” by the court for seeking tax exemption for his imported Rolls Royce. As Vijay had done in his petition, Dhanush had not disclosed his profession in court.
The business tax department is believed to have asked Dhanush to pay an entry tax of 60.66 lakhs, which the actor requested an exemption from the court in 2015. At that time the court had ordered the regional traffic office to allow the registration of the vehicle upon receipt of 50% of the entry tax. Later, upon the actor submitting that Rs. 30.33 lakhs had been paid, the court approved the registration of the vehicle in accordance with the rules and regulations. The brief has been pending since then.
When that case came up for trial in front of judge SM Subramaniam on Thursday, he said actors were allowed to even buy helicopters, but they would have to pay taxes. He added that actors may be eligible to file lawsuits against tax claims, but they must have paid taxes in full immediately after the Supreme Court settled the matter a few years ago. He also urged actors to act as responsible citizens instead of continuing to drive their cars with public money (taxes) without paying the taxes in full themselves.
When Dhanush’s attorney announced that the actor was ready to pay taxes in full and asked permission to withdraw the lawsuit, the judge declined as the matter had been pending since 2015. The judge also mentioned the Vexatious Litigations, which is a case filed with no serious purpose or relevance (to abuse the judicial process). He said cases of this type prevent the court from giving time to real cases and problems.
In 2020, actor Rajinikanth (who is also Dhanush’s father-in-law) appealed to the Madras High Court over a property tax claim from the Chennai Civic Body. The issue relates to a property tax claim of Rs.6.5 lakhs made by the Greater Chennai Corporation for the months of April-September at the actor’s Raghavendra marriage hall.
His attorney had stated that following the outbreak of the pandemic and the imposition of lockdown restrictions by the central and state governments, Rajini’s wedding hall remained empty and has not been rented since March 24.
It was mentioned that after March 24th (Lockdown 1) the actor canceled all bookings in the wedding hall and even refunded the advance money as directed by the government. The actor stated that he was entitled to a vacancy waiver and that on Jan.
When the court warned Rajini about the imposition of costs (fine), Rajini tweeted that he could have avoided a mistake and turned to the Chennai Corporation over a property tax dispute instead of going to the Madras High Court.