The Madras High Court has directed its Registry to number and list a petition seeking an investigation into alleged suppression of income by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) chief and Chief Minister-elect Joseph Vijay, while also clarifying that questions regarding the maintainability of cases must be decided by the judiciary and not by the Registry, as reported in LiveLaw.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan passed the direction after noting that the Registry had declined to number the petition due to doubts over its maintainability.
The bench observed that determining whether a case is maintainable is a judicial function and not an administrative one. The judges stated that if the Registry had doubts regarding maintainability, it could still assign a case number with an endorsement reading “numbered subject to maintainability” and place it before the appropriate roster judge along with the objections raised.
“In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the directions and circular already issued, we hereby direct the Registry not to refuse to number any case raising the issue of maintainability. If the cases filed are otherwise in order but the Registry still has a doubt regarding maintainability, the case shall be numbered with an endorsement ‘numbered subject to maintainability’ and shall be listed before the concerned Hon’ble Roster Judge, separately under the caption ‘for maintainability’, along with the objections raised and compliance reported. It is for the Court to decide on maintainability of the case and if found maintainable, then to consider the case on merits,” the court said.
The petition was filed by Chennai resident M. Rajkumar, who sought directions to the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) to examine materials and findings allegedly recorded during income tax search proceedings, sworn statements recorded during assessment proceedings, and penalty orders passed under the Income Tax Act against Joseph Vijay.
The petitioner further requested that authorities initiate prosecution proceedings against Vijay under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act based on the findings allegedly arising from those proceedings.
In addition to income tax-related action, the plea sought directions for an appropriate law enforcement agency to register a First Information Report (FIR) against Vijay and investigate alleged cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 420, 467, 470, 471 and 120B. The petition alleged suppression of income, receipt of unaccounted cash remuneration and concealment of financial transactions that were allegedly disclosed during search and statutory proceedings.
The plea also sought directions to the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to place the materials gathered during the search proceedings before the authorities functioning under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to examine whether any scheduled predicate offence and “proceeds of crime” existed, and to take appropriate action under the Act.
This is reportedly the third legal proceeding connected to alleged discrepancies in Vijay’s declared financial assets.
In the first petition, which sought an inquiry by the Income Tax Department, the Madras High Court had earlier issued notice to Vijay and directed the department to file its response.
In the second petition, which sought an inquiry by the Election Commission of India into Vijay’s asset declarations, the court dismissed the plea, observing that such directions could not be issued after the election process had commenced and stating that the petitioner would have to pursue the matter through an election petition.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
