Actor and politician Vijay, who also heads the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), has been caught in a fresh legal tussle with the Income Tax (I-T) department over allegations of non-disclosure of income from nearly a decade ago. The controversy stems from a raid conducted at his residence in 2015, during which officials claimed to have uncovered evidence showing that the actor had failed to declare an income of ₹15 crore earned from his film Puli. Based on these findings, the I-T department later imposed a penalty of ₹1.5 crore under Section 271AAB(1) of the Income Tax Act, a move that Vijay has now challenged in the Madras High Court.
The matter came up for hearing before Justice C. Saravanan, where the I-T department strongly opposed Vijay’s plea. Senior standing counsel AP Srinivas, appearing for the department, asserted that the penalty was justified, arguing that the documents seized during the raid conclusively established the non-disclosure. He further stated that the writ petition filed by Vijay lacked merit and should be dismissed outright, as the penalty was in line with statutory provisions.
Vijay’s legal team, however, countered the department’s position by raising a technical but crucial point. They argued that the penalty proceedings themselves were flawed because they had not been initiated within the permissible time frame. According to Vijay’s counsel, the I-T department should have launched the proceedings by June 30, 2019. Instead, the notice was served much later, on June 30, 2022—well beyond the statutory period of limitation. This, they claimed, rendered the entire penalty invalid.
The defense sought to quash the penalty because the notice was time-barred, emphasizing that the delay of nearly seven years between the initial search and the issuance of the notice was unjustifiable. Vijay’s team insisted that this violation of procedural timelines undermined the department’s case, regardless of the underlying allegations of non-disclosure.
The High Court took note of the arguments on both sides but refrained from delivering an immediate verdict. Instead, Justice Saravanan directed Vijay’s counsel to submit by October 10, 2025, a copy of a judgment he had delivered earlier in a similar case dealing with limitation in penalty proceedings. The judge indicated that such a precedent would help determine whether the actor’s petition could be upheld on technical grounds.
For the I-T department, the case represents not just a matter of recovering dues but also a high-profile instance of enforcement involving one of Tamil cinema’s most bankable stars. For Vijay, who has recently made the leap into active politics, the outcome carries both financial and reputational stakes. His challenge reflects an effort to demonstrate that the penalty was not only unfair but also procedurally unsound.
The case has now been adjourned until October 10, when the court is expected to revisit the matter with the benefit of additional documents and precedents. Until then, the penalty order remains in effect, keeping the pressure on Vijay as both his political and cinematic careers continue to attract public and media scrutiny.
