Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 6 - October 13, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 378 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 384 NOMINAL INDEX TR Ramesh v The Commissioner, HR & CE and others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 378 P Pappu v The Sub Registrar, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 379 S.Srinivasan v The Assistant Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 380 M/s. Aqua Excel v. The State Tax Officer (Adjudication), Office of Commercial Tax Officer, Tirunelveli, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 381 Muthukumar v State and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 382 M.S. Mohamed Siddique & Co. v. The Assessment Unit/Verification unit/ Technical Unit/Review Unit Income Tax Department, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 383 Harris Jayaraj v The Joint Director and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 384 REPORT “Benevolent Object”: Madras High Court Refuses To Interfere With Leasing Of 2.5 Acres Temple Land For Building College Case Title: TR Ramesh v The Commissioner, HR & CE and others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 378 The Madras High Court recently refused to quash an order leasing 2.50 acres of land belonging to Sri Somanathaswamy Temple in Kolathur to Sri Kapaliswarar Temple in Mylapore for 25 years to establish an Arts and Science College. Justice M Dhandapani noted that on perusal, the impugned order appeared to be for a benevolent object. The court noted that it was not inclined to interfere at this stage when the petitioner had the option to raise his grievance before the appropriate authority. The court thus gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department with his objections/suggestions and directed the authorities to consider the same on merits. Rule 55-A TN Registration Rules Has No Statutory Authority, Introduced Only To Enable Registrars To Refuse Registration Indiscriminately: Madras HC Case Title: P Pappu v The Sub Registrar Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 379 The Madras High Court recently observed that Rule 55A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, which gives powers to a Registrar to refuse registration had no statutory authority. As per Rule 55A, The registering officer before whom a document relating to immovable property is presented for registration, shall not register the same, unless the presentant produces the previous original deed by which the executant acquired right over the subject property and an Encumbrance Certificate pertaining to the property obtained within ten days from the date of presentation. Justice R Subramanian and Justice R Sakthivel observed that the Rule was introduced only to enable Registrars to refuse to register instruments indiscriminately. The court added that the Registrars were conferred certain powers under Section 68 of the Registration Act, and the power to issue any order needed to be consistent with the Act. Mere Possession Of 'Proceeds Of Crime' Sufficient To Invoke PMLA, HC Cannot Restrict Its Meaning To Restrain Authorities: Madras High Court Case Title: S.Srinivasan v The Assistant Director Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 380 The Madras High Court recently observed that the expression money laundering, as defined under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act has a wider meaning and the provisions of the Act could be invoked against a person for mere possession of proceeds of crime. The court added that since Section 3 is wider, the court could not restrict its meaning to restrain authorities from invoking the provisions of PMLA. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete noted that the expression money laundering ordinarily meant placing, layering and integrating tainted property in the formal economy, since the Section has wider reach it would capture every process and activity dealing with proceeds of crime, directly or indirectly and not limited to happening of the final act of integration. Goods Shall Be Released Provisionally If Assessee Demonstrates Inclusion Of Transaction In GSTR-1 Return: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s. Aqua Excel v. The State Tax Officer (Adjudication), Office of Commercial Tax Officer, Tirunelveli. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 381 The Madras High Court stated that if the assessee is able to demonstrate that the transaction is included in the GSTR-1 Return, the goods shall be released provisionally. The Bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq directed the assessee to submit a copy of the GSTR-1 report, as it would reveal whether the subject transaction was disclosed as a zero-rated sale. Samsung India Workers Strike: Madras HC Closes Plea Against Arrest Of Workers After State Informs That They Have Been Let Off Case Title: Muthukumar v State and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 382 The Madras High Court has closed a habeas corpus petition filed against the illegal arrest and detention of workers agitating at the Samsung India unit in Chennai. The bench of Justice PB Balaji and Justice G Arul Murugan closed the plea after noting the submissions of the ...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 6 - October 13, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags