Wa/753/2019 Of Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Mayi Industries

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJIFRIDAY, THE 22 DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 30TH ASWINA, 1943 WA NO. 600 OF 2017 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 11175/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: M/S. OLARI LITTLE FLOWER KURIES PVT. LTD.LITTLE FLOWER CHURCH, SHOPPING COMPLEX, OLARIKKARA, THRISSUR-680012, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN C.D.SUNNY BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARANSRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT/S: 1UNION OF INDIANEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, FINANCE DEPARTMENT - 110001NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, FINANCE DEPARTMENT - 110001 2CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXESDEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MININSTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110001DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MININSTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110001 3COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682018CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682018 4COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXAAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001.AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001. 5DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL, TDS, AYAKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3 VAISHALI GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH - 201010.CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL, TDS, AYAKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3 VAISHALI GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH - 201010. W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 &W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -2- BY ADV SRI.M.A.VINOD, CGC OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 22.10.2021,ALONG WITH WA.722/2019, 753/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THESAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -3- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE 22 DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 30TH ASWINA, 1943 WA NO. 722 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 37775/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALAAPPELLANT/S: INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 003. BY ADV SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT/S: 1M/S.SARALA MEMORIAL HOSPITALKILIMANOOR-ATTINGAL ROAD, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695601, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. 2UNION OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI. BY ADVS.SRI.D.SREEKUMARSMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 22.10.2021, ALONGWITH WA.600/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 &W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -5- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE 22 DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 30TH ASWINA, 1943 WA NO. 753 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2857/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALAAPPELLANT/S: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS),AAYANKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695003. BY ADV SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT/S: 1M/S MAYI INDUSTRIES,TC 9/1179, MANGALAM LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MAYA V NAIR, R/AT T.C.9/1179, SREEKRISHNA VILASOM, MANGLAM LANE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.TC 9/1179, MANGALAM LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MAYA V NAIR, R/AT T.C.9/1179, SREEKRISHNA VILASOM, MANGLAM LANE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF FINANCE DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-110001.MINISTRY OF FINANCE DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-110001. -6- BY ADVS.SRI.D.SREEKUMARSHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIASMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) BY ADV SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT/S: 1M/S MAYI INDUSTRIES,TC 9/1179, MANGALAM LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MAYA V NAIR, R/AT T.C.9/1179, SREEKRISHNA VILASOM, MANGLAM LANE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.TC 9/1179, MANGALAM LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MAYA V NAIR, R/AT T.C.9/1179, SREEKRISHNA VILASOM, MANGLAM LANE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF FINANCE DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-110001.MINISTRY OF FINANCE DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-110001. -6- BY ADVS.SRI.D.SREEKUMARSHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIASMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 22.10.2021, ALONGWITH WA.600/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 &W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -7- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE 22 DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 30TH ASWINA, 1943 WA NO. 752 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2879/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALAAPPELLANT/S: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AAYANKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIARTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM RESPONDENT/S: M/S.ANADIYIL HOSPITAL, TC 12/226-I, THEKKUMOODU, 1THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695035, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER DR. ARUNKUMAR, AGED 60 R/AT ANADIYIL, THEKKUMMODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695 035. 2UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI 110001 BY ADVS.SRI.D.SREEKUMARSMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 22.10.2021, ALONGWITH WA.600/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 &W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -9- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJIFRIDAY, THE 22 DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 30TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 23205 OF 2017 PETITIONER/S: M/S ORION HOLIDAY RESORTS LTDORION HOUSE, HIG-7PANAMPILLY NAGAR POST-682036.ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, P.P.PRADEEP KUMAR. BY ADVS.SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIARSRI.GEEN T.MATHEW RESPONDENT/S: 1UNION OF INDIAREPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (REVENUE) TO GOVERNMENTDEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,ROOM NO.128-A, NORTH BLOCKNEW DELHI G.P.O POST-110001NEW DELHI DISTRICT, DELHI STATE. 2CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXESDEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,6TH FLOOR, MAYUR BHAWAN, CONNAUGHT CIRCUSNEW DELHI G.P.O POST-110001NEW DELHI DISTRICT, DELHI STATE. 3THE INCOME TAX OFFICER H Q TDSOFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOCHIINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS I.S.PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682018.OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOCHIINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS I.S.PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682018. 4THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDSOFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)1ST FLOOR, POORNIMA, 28/243CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682018.OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)1ST FLOOR, POORNIMA, 28/243CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682018. SC SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 22.10.2021, ALONG WITH WA.600/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T [WA Nos.600/2017, 722/2019, 753/2019, 752/2019, 23205/2017] S.V. Bhatti, J. Heard Standing Counsel Mr Christopher Abraham, Adv. O Ramachandran Nambiar, Adv D S Sreekumaran and Adv. GHariharan for parties. 2.The instant batch cases deal with an issue arising in 4THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDSOFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)1ST FLOOR, POORNIMA, 28/243CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682018.OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)1ST FLOOR, POORNIMA, 28/243CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682018. SC SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 22.10.2021, ALONG WITH WA.600/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T [WA Nos.600/2017, 722/2019, 753/2019, 752/2019, 23205/2017] S.V. Bhatti, J. Heard Standing Counsel Mr Christopher Abraham, Adv. O Ramachandran Nambiar, Adv D S Sreekumaran and Adv. GHariharan for parties. 2.The instant batch cases deal with an issue arising in the background of requirement of clause (c) of Section 200A(1)read with Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short,'the Act'). W.A. No.600/2017 challenges the constitutionalvalidity of Section 234E of the Act. The cases have been heardas batch matters. Though the petitioners/assessees areseparate, we prefer to dispose of the appeals/petition by this -12- common judgment since the circumstances preceding the filingof the respective cases, grounds of challenge, etc aresubstantially same and similar. 2.1W.A. Nos.722, 752 & 753/2019 are treated as lead matters, and the circumstances referred to and considered in W.A. No.722/2019 is stated as representative appeal. W.A.No.722/2019 3.The Income Tax Officer (TDS)/2[nd] respondent in the writ petition is the appellant. M/s. Sarala Memorial Hospital,represented by its Managing Partner/respondent herein is thewrit petitioner. The parties are referred to as arrayed in thewrit petition. The petitioner challenged Exts.P1 to P6, prayedfor a writ of certiorari, quash Exts.P1 to P6 as illegal etc. Exts.P1 to P6 are intimations received by the writ petitioner underSection 154 of the Act calling upon the writ petitioner to pay the amounts covered by respective intimations towards late fee for delayed filing of TDS returns, under Section 234E of the Act,for the Financial Years 2012-13 and 2013-14. 3.1The petitioner effected tax deduction at source fromthe professional fees paid by the petitioner to individualsworking with petitioner, in terms of Section 194(J) and hadremitted the tax deducted at source to the credit of CentralGovernment under Section 200(1) of the Act. According torespondents, the writ petitioner filed quarterly statements ofdeduction of tax at source as required under Section 200(3)belatedly for the Financial Year 2012-13, and for all the fourquarters for the Financial Year 2013-14. The writ petitioner isunder statutory obligation under Section 234E to pay late feebefore submission of the returns. The belated quarterlystatements submitted by the writ petitioner were processed under Section 200A and intimations in Exts.P1 to P6, underSection 154 of the Act, were issued. 3.2The case of the writ petitioner is that clause (c) ofSection 200A(1) was inserted with effect from 01.06.2015. Theintimations in Exts.P1 to P6, as noted above, relate to FinancialYears 2012-13 and 2013-14. The writ petitioner relied on theCBDT circular no.19 of 2015 which clarified the date of cominginto effect of clause (c) of Section 200A(1) of the Act as01.06.2015. The case of respondent is that clause (c) of Section200A(1) is procedural and clarificatory in nature, would haveretrospective operation. The effective dates of operation arenot in dispute. The argument of respondents is that theamendment to Section 200A(1) by insertion of clause (c) isclarificatory and deals with procedure, the learned Judge oughtnot to have held and declared that the impugned intimations The case of the writ petitioner is that clause (c) of are illegal because clause (c) of Section 200A(1) has come into force with effect from 01.06.2015 and in other words does nothave retrospective operation. 4. The case of the writ petitioner is that clause (c) of are illegal because clause (c) of Section 200A(1) has come into force with effect from 01.06.2015 and in other words does nothave retrospective operation. 4. Mr Christopher Abraham reiterated the very argument which did not find favour in the judgment under appeal. According to him, Section 234E is rendered ineffective between the period 01.07.2012 and 31.05.2015 if the subjectclause is held as operative with effect from 01.06.2015. 5. Adv D S Sreekumaran appearing for the writ petitioner contends that the CBDT Circular is one of the mainreasons which convinced the learned Single Judge to accept thecontention of petitioner. The respondent/Revenue does notdeal with the effect and applicability of Circular referred to inthe judgment for challenging the impugned judgment. 6.The grounds raised against the judgment under -16- appeal are dealing with the very same arguments considered by the learned Single Judge. It is useful, at this juncture, to excerpt the operative portion of the learned Single Judge's judgment: “9. Interpreting Section 200A and Section 234E, the KarnatakaHigh Court has held in Fatheraj that when the statute confers noexpress power under section 200A before 01.06.2015 on theauthority either to compute and collect any fee under section234E, the demand for the period before 01.06.2015 could not besustained. Fatheraj in fact observes: 14. We may now deal with the contentions raised by thelearned counsel for the appellants. The first contention forassailing the legality and validity of the intimation undersection 200A was that, the provision of section 200A(1)(c), (d)and (f) have come into force only with effect from 1.6.2015and hence, there was no authority or competence orjurisdiction on the part of the concerned Officer or theDepartment to compute and determine the fee under section234E in respect of the assessment year of the earlier periodand the return filed for the said respective assessment yearsnamely all assessment years and the returns prior to 1.6.2015.It was submitted that when no express authority wasconferred by the statute under section 200A prior to 1.6.2015for computation of any fee under section 234E nor the determination thereof, the demand or the intimation for theprevious period or previous year prior to 1.6.2015 could nothave been made. 10. But the Gujarat High Court has taken a contrary stand inRajesh Kourani. It has held: "In plain terms, Section 200A is a machinery provisionproviding mechanism for processing a statement of deductionof tax at source and for making adjustments, which are, asnoted earlier, arithmetical or prima facie in nature. With effectfrom 1.6.2015, this provision specifically provides forcomputing the fee payable under Section 234E. On the otherhand, Section 234E is the charging provision creating a chargefor levying fee for certain defaults in filing the statements.Under no circumstances a machinery provision can override oroverrule a charging provision. Section 200A does not createany charge in any manner. It only provides a mechanism forprocessing a statement for tax deduction and the method inwhich the same would be done. When Section 234E has alreadycreated a charge for levying fee that would thereafter not havebeen necessary to have another provision creating the samecharge. Viewing Section 200A as creating a new charge wouldbring about a dichotomy. In plain terms, the provision is amachinery provision and at best provides for a mechanism forprocessing and computing besides other, fee payable undersection 234E for late filing of the statements". -18- 11. There is a cleavage in judicial opinion. But I am afraid,elaborate as the judgment may be in Rajesh Kourani, it does notseem to have considered the Circular No.19 of 2015, which inpara 47.3 clarifies: -18- 11. There is a cleavage in judicial opinion. But I am afraid,elaborate as the judgment may be in Rajesh Kourani, it does notseem to have considered the Circular No.19 of 2015, which inpara 47.3 clarifies: "47.3 Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 inserted section 200A in theIncome-tax Act which provides for processing of TDSstatements for determining the amount payable or refundableto the deductor. However, as section 243E was inserted after theinsertion of section 200A of the Income-tax Act, the existingprovisions of section 200A of the Income Tax Act did not provide fordetermination of fee payable under Section 234E of the Income TaxAct at the time of processing of TDS statements. Therefore, theprovisions of Section 200A of the Income Tax Act has beenamended so as to enable computation of fee payable underSection 234E of the Income Tax Act at the time of processing ofTDS Statement under Section 200A of the Income Tax Act." (italics supplied) 6.1A Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in W.A. Nos.2663-2674/2015 was answering the question whether clause (c) of Section 200A(1) is prospective or retrospective. TheDivision Bench held as follows: “20. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, twoaspects may transpire one, for Section 234E providing for feeand given privilege to the defaulter if he pays the fee andhence, when a privilege is given for a particular purpose whichin the present case is to come out from rigors of penalprovision of Section 271H(1)(a), it cannot be said that theprovisions of fee since creates a counter benefit or reciprocalbenefit in favour of the defaulter in the rigors of the penalprovision, the provisions of Section 234E would meet with thetest of quid pro quo 21. However, if Section 234E providing for fee was brought onthe state book, keeping in view the aforesaid purpose and theintention then, the other mechanism provided for computationof fee and failure for payment of fee under Section 200A whichhas been brought about with effect from 1.6.2015 cannot besaid as only by way of a regulatory mode or a regulatorymechanism but it can rather be termed as conferringsubstantive power upon the authority. It is true that, aregulatory mechanism by insertion of any provision made inthe statute book, may have a retroactive character but,whether such provision provides for a mere regulatorymechanism or confers substantive power upon the authoritywould also be a aspect which may be required to be considered before such provisions is held to be retroactive in nature.Further, when any provision is inserted for liability to pay anytax or the fee by way of compensatory in nature or feeindependently simultaneously mode and the manner of itsenforceability is also required to be considered and examined.Not only that, but, if the mode and the manner is not expresslyprescribed, the provisions may also be vulnerable. All suchaspects will be required to be considered before one considersregulatory mechanism or provision for regulating the modeand the manner of recovery and its enforceability asretroactive. If at the time when the fee was provided underSection 234E, the Parliament also provided for its utility forgiving privilege under Section 271H(3) that too by expressly putbar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso toSection 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up forimposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E wasprovided but, it did not provide for making of demand of suchfee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence,considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, weare unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel forrespondent-Revenue that insertion of clause (c) to (f) underSection 200A(1) should be treated as retroactive in characterand not prospective. 22. It is hardly required to be stated that, as per the wellestablished principles of interpretation of statute, unless it isexpressly provided or impliedly demonstrated, any provision ofstatute is to be read as having prospective effect and notretrospective effect. Under the circumstances, we find thatsubstitution made by clause (c) to (t) of sub-section (1) ofSection 200A can be read as having prospective effect and nothaving retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demandunder Section 200A for computation and intimation for thepayment of fee under Section 234E could not be made inpurported exercise of power under Section 200A by therespondent for the period of the respective assessment yearprior to 1.6.2015. However, we make it clear that, if anydeductor has already paid the fee after intimation receivedunder Section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit thedeductor to reopen the said question unless he has madepayment under protest. 23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, sincethe impugned intimation given by the respondent Departmentagainst all the appellants under Section 200A are so far as theyare for the period prior to 1.6.2015 can be said as without anyauthority under law. Hence, the same can be said as illegal andinvalid.” 6.2 Firstly, we are convinced with the reasoning and basis for the view taken by the learned Single Judge in thejudgment under appeal, and secondly, the view taken by theKarnataka High Court in the judgment referred to above is tothe same effect. Keeping in view the grounds of challenge andthe view taken by this Court as well as the Karnataka High Courtin the judgment referred to above, we are of the view that theappeal at the instance of 2[nd] respondent is without merit and isliable to be dismissed. Accordingly dismissed. W.A. Nos.752 & 753/2019 7. These two appeals are at the instance of the Revenue and are similar to the issues dealt with by this Court in W.A.No.722/2019. For the reasons stated supra, the appeals fail andare accordingly dismissed. -23- W.A. No.600/2017 8.M/s.Olari Little Flower Kuries Pvt. Ltd/writ petitioner is the appellant. The challenge laid by the writpetitioner on the validity of Section 234E of the Act wasnegatived. Hence the appeal. 8.1Mr Christopher Abraham relies on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India[1]wherein it has been held and declared that Section 234E is intravires Constitution of India. 8.2By following the judgment in Rashmikant Kundaliacase, W.A. No.600/2017 stands dismissed. No order as to costs. W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 9.M/s.Orion Holiday Resorts Ltd is the petitioner. The petitioner prays for the following reliefs: “a). to declare that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, making a person liable topay, by way of "FEE", a sum of Rs.200/- for every day for thedelay in filing the statement referred to in such Section 200 (3)or Section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal, arbitrary,invalid and unconstitutional. b). to declare that the levy in the nature of "FEE" as per Section234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the person who fails todeliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the timespecified in Section 200 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 isillegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and is violativeof Article 14 and 19(g) of the Constitution of India. c), to declare that levy of "FEE" under Section 234E of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 without granting an opportunity to theconcerned person and also without vesting any powers on theIncome Tax Officer to either waive or delete such fee is highlyillegal, arbitrary and invalid. d). to issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, direction ororder quashing Exhibits P1, P1 (a), P1 (b), P1 (c); Exhibits P2, P2(a), P2 (b), P2 (c); Exhibits P3, P3 (a), P3 (b), P3 (c) and ExhibitsP4, P4 (a), P4 (b) intimations issued by the 3rd respondent tothe petitioner. c), to declare that levy of "FEE" under Section 234E of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 without granting an opportunity to theconcerned person and also without vesting any powers on theIncome Tax Officer to either waive or delete such fee is highlyillegal, arbitrary and invalid. d). to issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, direction ororder quashing Exhibits P1, P1 (a), P1 (b), P1 (c); Exhibits P2, P2(a), P2 (b), P2 (c); Exhibits P3, P3 (a), P3 (b), P3 (c) and ExhibitsP4, P4 (a), P4 (b) intimations issued by the 3rd respondent tothe petitioner. e), to issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, direction ororder quashing Exhibits P9 and P10 orders. f). to issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, direction ororder restraining the respondents from enforcing Section 234Eof the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the petitioner. g). to call for the entire records relating to Exhibits P9 and P10orders. h). to award costs of the writ petition from the respondents. And i). to grant such and other reliefs as may be deemed just andnecessary for the facts and circumstances of the case.” 9.1Stated briefly, the writ petitioner challenges the intimation received under Section 200A from the respondent/Revenue calling upon the writ petitioner to pay late fee for delayed filing of quarterly statements of TDS. Theperiods for which the notices are issued are stated as prior to01.06.2015. By following the judgment in W.P.(C) No.37775/2018, as confirmed in W.A. No.722/2019, the writ petition stands allowed and the intimations dealing with filingof belated statements prior to 01.06.2015 are set aside. A return filed subsequent to 01.06.2015 is present, the respondents aregiven liberty to issue notice, hear the writ petitioner, and passorders in accordance with law. Writ Petition allowed as indicated above. Sd/- S.V.BHATTIJUDGE Sd/-BASANT BALAJIJUDGE jjj W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 &W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -27- APPENDIX OF WA 753/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A JUDGMENT DATED 18/12/2018 IN WP(C)NO.37775/2018 IN THE CASE OF M/S.SARALA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL V.UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 &W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -28- APPENDIX OF WA 752/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE AJUDGMENT DATED 18/12/2018 IN WP(C)NO.37775/2018 IN THE CASE OF M/S.SARALA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL V.UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 &W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23205/2017 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 12.09.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER I OF F.Y.2013-14.ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER I OF F.Y.2013-14. EXHIBIT P1(A)TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 26.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2013-14.ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2013-14. EXHIBIT P1(B)TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 12.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2013-14.ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2013-14. EXHIBIT P1(C)TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 12.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 4 OF F.Y.2013-14.ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 4 OF F.Y.2013-14. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 04.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 1 OF F.Y.2014-15.ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 1 OF F.Y.2014-15. EXHIBIT P2(A)TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 04.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2013-14.ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2013-14. EXHIBIT P2(B)TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 04.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2014-15.ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2014-15. EXHIBIT P2(C)TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 04.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 4 OF F.Y.2014-15.ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 4 OF F.Y.2014-15. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 04.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 1 OF F.Y.2014-15.ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 1 OF F.Y.2014-15. EXHIBIT P2(A)TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 04.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2013-14.ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2013-14. EXHIBIT P2(B)TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 04.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2014-15.ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2014-15. EXHIBIT P2(C)TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 04.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 4 OF F.Y.2014-15.ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 4 OF F.Y.2014-15. EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 04.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 1 OF F.Y.2015-16.ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 1 OF F.Y.2015-16. EXHIBIT P3(A)TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 12.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2015-16.ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2015-16. EXHIBIT P3(B)TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 08.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 3 OF F.Y.2015-16.ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 3 OF F.Y.2015-16. EXHIBIT P3(C)TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 08.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 4 OF F.Y.2015-16.ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 4 OF F.Y.2015-16. EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 04.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 1 OF F.Y.2016-17.ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 1 OF F.Y.2016-17. EXHIBIT P4(A)TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 04.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2016-17.ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2016-17. EXHIBIT P4(B)TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 29.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2016-17.ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2016-17. EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBITS P1 SERIES ORDERS.BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBITS P1 SERIES ORDERS. EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBITS P2 SERIES ORDERS.BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBITS P2 SERIES ORDERS.