Dhanush asked to pay remaining entry tax for his Rolls Royce in 48 hours

Justice SM Subramaniam before whom the actor’s plea for withdrawal came up, observed that there is no issue with the actor purchasing a luxury car, but once the car is plying on Indian roads, tax should be paid as a matter of Constitutional duty.Further, on questioning Dhanush’s counsel as to why the case was kept pending for so long after the issue was settled by the Supreme Court, the HC further observed that the actor could have paid the tax first and then withdrawn the matter. 

The court also took critical note of Dhanush failing to disclose his profession in his affidavit. Justice Subramanian on observing that it may amount to suppressing facts, said, “Persons coming to court must state identity, who are you, what is your profession.” 

Following this, the court on holding that the relief of “withdrawal” of the petition is rejected since the issue has already been settled by SC, directed the registry to ensure that affidavits filed in writ petitions are entertained on compliance of requirements as contemplated under Madras HC Writ Rules and action under service rules should be initiated if writs are numbered without compliance. However, Justice Subramaniam said, “Litigants should not keep cases pending unnecessarily, as courts are already overburdened. This is only obiter dicta (that which is said in passing).”