Superstar actor and still political hopeful Rajinikanth has, on Wednesday, received a stern warning from the Madras High Court for his hurried approach against the notice issued by the Greater Chennai Corporation in which the civic body had demanded the actor to pay Rs 6.50 lakh as property tax for his marriage hall in Chennai.
Rajinikanth owns a marriage hall, Sri Raghavendra Mandapam in Kodambakkam, Chennai, and according to reports, the civic body had issued a notice to his property and demanded the actor to pay the tax. However, after receiving the notice, the actor had approached the Madras High Court against the corporation's demand to pay the tax.
In his petition, Rajinikanth said that the marriage hall has been vacant since March 24, 2020, due to the lockdown and restrictions and the marriage hall had earned no revenue during the period of lockdown. However, he argued that amid no income, the civic body had issued him a notice on September 10 to pay the property tax for the months of April to September.
He further stated that he had canceled all the bookings for his marriage hall in the wake of the restrictions and claimed that he had refunded the advance money to the parties. The actor highlighted that as per the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act of 1919, the tax can be remitted if the premises remained vacant for over 30 days.
By claiming that he can remit the tax, he said that the civic body had issued a notice to him to pay the property tax despite knowing the regulation. As he challenged the notice, he sought the directive from the High Court against the civic body regarding its notice. His petition came to hearing on Wednesday before the High Court bench headed by Justice Anitha Sumanth.
During the hearing, the justice had observed that the actor had hurriedly approached the court within ten days of receiving the notice and the High Court had issued a stern warning that they could be imposed with the penalty as they rushed to the judiciary within four days of receiving the notice.
The High Court had castigated the actor's counsel for wasting the court's time following which the counsel had agreed to withdraw the petition. However, the court had asked the actor to file a separate petition seeking to withdraw the petition against the civic body.