I Have Heard Sri.k.n.sreekumaran, The Learned Counsel v. In View Of The Above, The Demand In Ext.p1 To Ext.p3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 7 DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 17TH POUSHA, 1943W.P.(C) NO.29655 OF 2021 PETITIONER: EUROTECH MARITIME ACADEMY (P) LTD., OPP. TVS, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. (REPRESENTED BY SRI. BABU JOSEPH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR) BY ADVS. K.N.SREEKUMARAN P.J.ANILKUMAR (A-1768)N.SANTHOSHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AAYKAR BHAVAN, I.S.PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 018. 2DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CPC, AAYKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GAZHIABAD, UTTARPRADESH-201 010. VAISHALI, GAZHIABAD, UTTARPRADESH-201 010. 3CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 4UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1-R3ADV.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, STANDING COUNSEL R4ADV.S.MANU, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON07.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.29655 of 2021 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7[th] day of January, 2022 JUDGMENT By Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 intimations, petitioner has been calledupon to pay the late filing fee under section 234E of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. As per the aforesaid intimations, amounts have been demanded as late fee for the periods from 2012-13 to 2014-15 onthe 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, wherea person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered astatement within the time prescribed in sub-section (3) ofSection 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section206C, he shall be liable to pay, by way of fee, a sum oftwo hundred rupees for every day during which thefailure continues.” 3. Though section 234E of the Act was introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1[st] July, 2012, since petitioneris being demanded by Ext.P1 late fee for not filing the statementof tax deduction at source, it is necessary to refer to section 200Aof the Act. Section 200A(1) incorporated clause (c) to clause (f) W.P.(C) NO.29655 OF 2021 -3- with effect from 01.06.2015. Sub-clause to section 200A (1)refers to the fee if any to be computed in accordance with theprovisions of section 200A(1)(e). It is the claim of the petitionerthat till 01.06.2015 petitioner cannot be mulcted with any liabilityto pay late fee for non filing of any statement of tax deduction atsource. 4. I have heard Sri.K.N.Sreekumaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned StandingCounsel for respondents 1 to 3 as well as Sri.S.Manu, the learnedAssistant Solicitor General of India for the 4[th] respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to myattention the decision in M/s.Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of India and Another (W.P.(C) No.37775 of 2018)wherein an identical question arose for consideration. Afterconsidering the statutory provisions and the implications of theamendment brought in to the Act, it was held that theamendment would take effect only with effect from 1[st] June, 2015and is thus prospective in nature. It is submitted that theaforesaid judgment has become final and is binding upon theauthorities. -4- 6. In view of the above, the demand in Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 intimations for the period from 2012-13 to 2014-15 is bereft ofauthority and cannot be legally sustainable. 7. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 intimations to the Union of India and Another (W.P.(C) No.37775 of 2018)wherein an identical question arose for consideration. Afterconsidering the statutory provisions and the implications of theamendment brought in to the Act, it was held that theamendment would take effect only with effect from 1[st] June, 2015and is thus prospective in nature. It is submitted that theaforesaid judgment has become final and is binding upon theauthorities. -4- 6. In view of the above, the demand in Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 intimations for the period from 2012-13 to 2014-15 is bereft ofauthority and cannot be legally sustainable. 7. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 intimations to the extent it demands late fee under section 234E for the assessmentyears from 2012-13 till 2014-15. The writ petition is therefore allowed as above. bpr Sd/-BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF LEVY U/S 234E, AGAINST 24A OF Q4 FOR F.Y 2012-13 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF LEVY U/S 234E, AGAINST 24A OF Q4 FOR F.Y 2013-14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF LEVY U/S 234E, AGAINST 24A OF Q4 FOR F.Y 2014-15 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER