Kalanithi Maran moves HC against I-T order on SpiceJet 'tax dues'

SpiceJet | Company reported loss at Rs 105.6 crore in Q2FY21 against loss at Rs 461.2 crore, revenue fell to Rs 1,070.5 crore versus Rs 2,848.3 crore YoY.

Trade

• Watchlist
• Portfolio
• Message
• Set Alert

 

 

Choose Stock Exchange: BSE LIVE NSE LIVE

26 Aug, 2025 12:21

Volume

Todays L/H

More

×

Media conglomerate Sun Group chairman Kalanithi Maran has moved the Madras High Court, assailing an Income Tax department order declaring him as the principal officer of low-cost carrier SpiceJet and making him liable for the alleged tax dues of the company when it was owned by him.

Maran, who sold the then sick SpiceJet to Ajay Singh in 2015, sought to quash the order related to various financial years when the company was under his ownership.

When the matter came up before Justice M Duraiswamy, senior counsel P S Raman, appearing for Maran, said his client was only the non-executive chairman of the company then and that he had no say in its day-to-day activities.

Such affairs, including issues pertaining to taxes were managed by a full-time managing director of the company, who had written to the I-T department stating this, he submitted.

Raman also contended that Maran had not signed any document filed with the IT department on the company's behalf.

Opposing the contentions, the counsel for the IT department argued that it had reasons to believe that Maran was in control of the company.

He also questioned the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court to hear the matter, saying the IT office, which had passed the order, and the registered office of SpiceJet were in New Delhi.

Also, the petitioner had already approached the Delhi High Court, seeking to quash the order, and hence, the Madras High Court did not have territorial jurisdiction over the issue, he added.

To this, Maran's counsel said his client was a resident of Chennai and that the notice and the final order of the IT department were served to him at his Chennai address.

Therefore, the Madras High Court had territorial jurisdiction over the matter, he argued.

Recording the submissions, the judge ordered the IT department to file its counter-affidavit and posted the plea to March 6 for further hearing.