The Decision In M/S.sarala Memorial Hospital v. In View Of The Above, The Demand In Ext.p1 To Ext.p4Intimations For The Period From 2012-13 To 2013-14 Is Bereft Of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 12 DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 22ND POUSHA, 1943WP(C) NO. 900 OF 2022 PETITIONER: THE PROFESSIONAL COURIERS,I, POOLAKATAYIL SHOPPING COMPLEX, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678007BY ADVS.P.J.ANILKUMAR (A-1768)K.N.SREEKUMARANN.SANTHOSHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)AAYKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHRUCH ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN – 6781012DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXTDS CPC, AAYKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3 , VAISHALI, GAZIABAD,UTTARPRADESH, PIN – 2010103CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXESNORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110002,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. -:2:- 4UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT,NEW DELHI-110001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FORADMISSION ON 12.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -:3:- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.900 of 2022 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12[th] day of January, 2022 JUDGMENT By Ext.P1 to Ext.P4 intimations, petitioner has been called upon to pay the late filing fee under section 234E of the Income TaxAct, 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 2013-14 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, where a personfails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the timeprescribed in sub-section (3) of Section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C, he shall be liable to pay, by way of fee,a sum of two hundred rupees for every day during which the failurecontinues.” 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 to Ext.P4 late fee for not filing thestatement of tax deduction at source, it is necessary to refer tosection 200A of the Act. Section 200A(1) incorporated clause (c) to W.P.(C) No.900/22 -:4:- clause (f) 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 petitioner thattill 01.06.2015 petitioner cannot be mulcted with any liability to paylate fee for non filing of any statement of tax deduction at source. 4. I have heard Sri.P.J.Anilkumar, learned counsel for thepetitioner, Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned Standing Counsel forthe respondents 1 to 3 as well as Sri.S.Manu, learned AssistantSolicitor General of India for the fourth respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my attention the decision in M/s.Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of Indiaand Another (W.P.(C) No.37775 of 2018) wherein an identicalquestion arose for consideration. After considering the statutoryprovisions and the implications of the amendment brought in to theAct, it was held that the amendment would take effect only with effectfrom 1[st] June, 2015 and is thus prospective in nature. It is submittedthat the aforesaid judgment has become final and is binding upon theauthorities. 6. In view of the above, the demand in Ext.P1 to Ext.P4intimations for the period from 2012-13 to 2013-14 is bereft of W.P.(C) No.900/22 -:5:- authority and cannot be legally sustainable. 7. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P1 to Ext.P4 intimations to theextent it demands late fee under section 234E for the period from 2012-13 till 2013-14. The writ petition is therefore allowed as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM -:6:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 900/2022 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1 6. In view of the above, the demand in Ext.P1 to Ext.P4intimations for the period from 2012-13 to 2013-14 is bereft of W.P.(C) No.900/22 -:5:- authority and cannot be legally sustainable. 7. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P1 to Ext.P4 intimations to theextent it demands late fee under section 234E for the period from 2012-13 till 2013-14. The writ petition is therefore allowed as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM -:6:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 900/2022 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF LEVY U/S 234E, AGAINST 26Q OF Q2 FOR F.Y: 2012-13ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF LEVY U/S 234E, AGAINST 26Q OF Q3 FOR F.Y: 2012-13ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF LEVY U/S 234E, AGAINST 26Q OF Q4 FOR F.Y: 2012-13ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF LEVY U/S 234E, AGAINST 26Q OF Q2 FOR 2013-14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. ITBA/COM/F/ 17/2021-22/ 1037038733(1) DATED 18..11..2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REGARDING TDS DUES INCLUDING LATE FEE UNDER 234E. RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS : NIL AJM //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE