Attention The Decision In M/S.sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 10 DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 28378 OF 2021 PETITIONER : M/S.UNITED METALSPALAKUZHA, KARIMPANA, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM - 686662, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR. SAJEEV MATHEW. PALAKUZHA, KARIMPANA, MUVATTUPUZHA, BY ADVS.S.K.DEVIM.RAJ MOHANP.K.MAYA DEVISHANMUGHAM D. JAYAN RESPONDENTS : 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) KOCHI (2),INCOME TAX BUILDINGS, I.S. PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682018.INCOME TAX BUILDINGS, I.S. PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682018. 2THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI - 110001. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No.28378 of 2021=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 10[th] day of December, 2021 JUDGMENT By Ext.P1 notice dated 02.02.2021, petitioner has been called upon to pay the late filing fee under section 234E of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short,'the Act'). 2. As per the aforesaid demand notice, an amount of Rs.3,26,760/- is demanded for the periods from 2011-12 to 2019-20on the basis of the provisions in section 234E of the Act, which is asfollows: “234E-Fee for default in furnishing statements:- (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, where aperson fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statementwithin the time prescribed in sub-section (3) of Section 200or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C, he shall beliable to pay, by way of fee, a sum of two hundred rupees forevery day during which the failure continues.” 3. Though section 234E of the Act was introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1[st] July, 2012, since petitioner isbeing demanded by Ext.P1 late fee for not filing the statement of taxdeduction at source, it is necessary to refer to section 200A of the Act. Section 200A(1) incorporated clause (c) to clause (f) with effect from 01.06.2015. Sub-clause to section 200A (1) refers to the fee ifany to be computed in accordance with the provisions of section200A(1)(e). It is the claim of the petitioner that till 01.06.2015petitioner cannot be mulcted with any liability to pay late fee for nonfiling of any statement of tax deduction at source. 4. I have heard Smt.S.K.Devi, learned counsel for thepetitioner, Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned Standing Counsel forthe first respondent as well as Sri.S.Manu, learned Assistant SolicitorGeneral of India for the second respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my attention the decision in M/s.Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of India and Another (W.P.(C) No.37775 of 2018) wherein anidentical question arose for consideration. After considering thestatutory provisions and the implications of the amendment broughtin to the Act, it was held that the amendment would take effect onlywith effect from 1[st] June, 2015 and is thus prospective in nature. Itis submitted that the aforesaid judgment has become final and isbinding upon the authorities. 6. In view of the above, the demand in Ext.P1 for theperiod from 2011-12 to the first quarter of 2015-16 is bereft ofauthority and cannot be legally sustainable. 7. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P1 notice to the extent itdemands fee under section 234E for the period from 2011-12 till01.06.2015. The writ petition is therefore allowed in part. RKM Sd/-BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28378/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ITBA/COM/F/17/2020-2021/1030284671(1) DATED 02.02.2021.