Dismissed

Advocate M.Palanimuthu v. The Union of India

Madras HC5 Dec 2014WP/31903/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this public interest litigation, the petitioner sought a writ directing respondents to declare collection of marking loss/wastage in gold jewellery trade illegal and enforce strict VAT billing. The bench held jewellery is not an essential item and preferred administrative response. The court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus prayed for to declare marking loss collection illegal and enforce strict VAT billing was denied.

Advocate M.Palanimuthu Vs The Union of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.12.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND The Hon'ble MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶5

W.P.No.31903 of 2014

¶6

and M.P.No.1 of 2014 Advocate M.Palanimuthu .. Petitioner vs 1.The Union of India rep. By its Secretary to Government, Dept. of Consumer Affairs, Government of India, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi. 2.The Director General Bureau of Indian Standard, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shal, Zaffer Marg, New Delhi. 3.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Dept. of Commercial Taxes, Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶7

4.The Convenor, The Madras Jewellery & Diamond Merchants Association, 7/3, Badriah Garden Lane, Park Town, Chennai. .. Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to (i) declare that the collection of marking loss and wastages as illegal, (ii) strict enforcement for VAT billing for all purchases of gold and silver jewellery ornaments and articles.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Palanimuthu Party-in-person.

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶13

The petitioner, an advocate by profession, seeks to raise the issue, in a public interest litigation, of regulating the trade of sale of jewellery, more specifically gold jewellery. It is his case that the trade should be regulated so that the wastages are specified or returned to the customer. He also submits that the methodology of charging VAT is not correct and there are misuses in the trade. He submits that while there are citizens, who do not have even the minimum amount of gold, different jewellery malls are coming up all over the world.

¶14

2.In our view, this is a social discourse. Jewellery is not a matter of an essential item. There is no compulsion to buy jewellery. Whether and how necessary parameters are to be provided for the trade is the matter for the Government to examine. Interestingly, the petitioner preferred a representation on 25.11.2014 and six days later, has filed the Public Interest Litigation, not even giving adequate time to the Government to respond, if it is so desired. The petitioner has, in fact, also referred to certain advertisements and submits that they are misleading. If any trader is publishing misleading advertisements, then the forum for that is different and not through the Public Interest Litigation.

¶15

3.We are, thus, not inclined to entertain this Public Interest Litigation. The Writ Petition is, thus, dismissed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶16

Sd/-

¶17

Assistant Registrar Dated:16.12.14

¶18

True Copy

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

¶21

1.The Secretary to Govt., Department of Consumer Affairs Government of India, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

2.The Director General, Bureau of Indian Standard, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Stal, Zaffer marg, New Delhi.

¶24

3.The Secretary to Government Department of Commercial Taxes, Fort st.George, Chennai.

¶25

Copy to: The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Fort st.George, Chennai-9.

¶26

+1 cc to Mr.N.Ramesh,CGSC,SR.59452.
kv(co)
krd 17/12
W.P.No.31903 of 2014

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Advocate M.Palanimuthu v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Advocate M.Palanimuthu v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. K. Rajini Vs Mrs. Sridevi Nagaraj

Aircel Cellular Ltd. Vs Sandeep Venugopal

M/S. Flyways Vs Alm Leather Exports

M.Karthigeyan Vs The District Collector

K.M.Sadhanandh Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M/S. National Insurance Co. Vs Mr. G. Ramesh Kumar