Allowed

The Professional Couriers v. Income Tax Officer Tds

Kerala HC12 Jan 2022WP(C)/900/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses the validity of late fee demands under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for financial years 2012-13 to 2013-14. Relying on the decision in M/s. Sarala Memorial Hospital, the court held that amendments effective from June 1, 2015, do not apply retrospectively, rendering the demand invalid.

What did the court decide?

The intimations for late fees under Section 234E for the periods 2012-13 and 2013-14 were quashed.

The Professional Couriers Vs Income Tax Officer Tds — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 22ND POUSHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 900 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

THE PROFESSIONAL COURIERS, I, POOLAKATAYIL SHOPPING COMPLEX, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678007

¶7

BY ADVS. P.J.ANILKUMAR (A-1768) K.N.SREEKUMARAN N.SANTHOSHKUMAR

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) AAYKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHRUCH ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678101

¶10

2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS CPC, AAYKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3 , VAISHALI, GAZIABAD,UTTARPRADESH, PIN – 201010

¶11

3 CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110002, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶12

W.P.(C) No.900/22

¶13

-:2:-

¶14

4 UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C) No.900/22

¶19

-:3:-

¶20

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶21

----------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.900 of 2022

¶22

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2022

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

By Ext.P1 to Ext.P4 intimations, petitioner has been called

¶25

upon to pay the late filing fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short,'the Act').

¶26

As per the aforesaid intimations, amounts have been demanded as late fee for the periods from 2012-13 to 2013-14 on

¶27

the basis of the provisions in section 234E of the Act, which is as follows:

¶28

“ 234E-Fee for default in furnishing statements :-

¶29

(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in sub-section (3) of Section 200 or the proviso to subsection (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 failure continues.”

¶30

Though section 234E of the Act was introduced by the

¶31

Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1^st July, 2012, since petitioner is being demanded by Ext.P1 to Ext.P4 late fee for not filing the

¶32

statement of tax deduction at source, it is necessary to refer to section 200A of the Act. Section 200A(1) incorporated clause (c) to

¶33

W.P.(C) No.900/22

¶34

-:4:-

¶35

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 the provisions of section 200A(1)(e). It is the claim of the petitioner that till 01.06.2015 petitioner cannot be mulcted with any liability to pay late fee for non filing of any statement of tax deduction at source.

¶36

I have heard Sri.P.J.Anilkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 as well as Sri.S.Manu, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the fourth respondent.

¶37

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 an identical question arose for consideration. After considering the statutory provisions and the implications of the amendment brought in to the Act, it was held that the amendment would take effect only with effect from 1^st June, 2015 and is thus prospective in nature. It is submitted that the aforesaid judgment has become final and is binding upon the authorities.

¶38

In view of the above, the demand in Ext.P1 to Ext.P4 intimations for the period from 2012-13 to 2013-14 is bereft of

¶39

W.P.(C) No.900/22

¶40

-:5:-

¶41

authority and cannot be legally sustainable.

¶42

Accordingly, I quash Ext.P1 to Ext.P4 intimations to the

¶43

extent it demands late fee under section 234E for the period from

¶44

2012-13 till 2013-14.

¶45

The writ petition is therefore allowed as above.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

AJM

W.P.(C) No.900/22

-:6:-

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 900/2022

¶52

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS :

¶53

Exhibit	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE 234E, AGAINST 26Q ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.	INTIMATION OF LEVY U/S OF Q2 FOR F.Y: 2012-13 RESPONDENT TO THE
Exhibit	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE 234E, AGAINST 26Q ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.	INTIMATION OF LEVY U/S OF Q3 FOR F.Y: 2012-13 RESPONDENT TO THE
Exhibit	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE 234E, AGAINST 26Q ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.	INTIMATION OF LEVY U/S OF Q4 FOR F.Y: 2012-13 RESPONDENT TO THE
Exhibit	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE 234E, AGAINST 26Q ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.	INTIMATION OF LEVY U/S OF Q2 FOR 2013-14 RESPONDENT TO THE
Exhibit	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE 17/2021-22/ 10370 18..11..2021 ISSU RESPONDENT REGARD LATE FEE UNDER 23	NOTICE NO. ITBA/COM/F/ 38733(1) DATED ED BY THE 1ST ING TDS DUES INCLUDING 4E.

¶54

RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS : NIL

¶55

AJM //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

The Professional Couriers v. Income Tax Officer Tds

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Professional Couriers v. Income Tax Officer Tds

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Nair Vs Hdfc Ltd.

Shri.Jacob Pulickal George Vs the Income Tax Officer

Radha.B Vs Authorised Officer

K.R.Ushasree Vs the State Tax Officer

Rasheeda Muhsin Vs Axis Bank Limited

Abhijith Mohan Vs the Asst. Commissioner