Kerala High Court
Sajeev Mathew And Company vs The Income Tax Officer(Tds) Kochi ... on 30 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021/9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 24533 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
SAJEEV MATHEW AND COMPANY
CHERUMATTATHIL PLAZA,
OPP.ARAKUZHA ROAD JN., MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM-686661,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
MR.SAJEEV MATHEW.
BY ADVS.
SMT.S.K.DEVI
SRI.M.RAJ MOHAN
SRI.SHANMUGHAM D. JAYAN
SMT.P.K.MAYA DEVI
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS) KOCHI (2),
INCOME TAX BUILDINGS,
I.S.PRESS ROAD,
ERNAKULAM-682018.
2 UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
NEW DELHI-110001.
R1 BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC
R2 BY SRI.S.MANU, ASGI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 30.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.24533/21
-:2:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.24533 of 2021
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2021
JUDGMENT
By Ext.P1 notice dated 24.09.2021, petitioner has been called
upon to pay the late filing fee under section 234E of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (for short,'the Act').
2. As per the aforesaid demand notice, an amount of
Rs.4,02,150/- is demanded for the periods from 2011-12 to 2021-22
on the basis of the provisions in section 234E of the Act, which is as
follows:
"234E-Fee for default in furnishing statements:-
(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 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 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 is
being demanded by Ext.P1 late fee for not filing the statement of tax
deduction at source, it is necessary to refer to section 200A of the
W.P.(C) No.24533/21
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 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.
4. I have heard Smt.S.K.Devi, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for
the first respondent as well as Sri.S.Manu, learned Assistant Solicitor
General 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 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.
6. In view of the above, the demand in Ext.P1 for the period
W.P.(C) No.24533/21
from 2011-12 to 2015-16 is bereft of authority and cannot be legally
sustainable.
7. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P1 notice to the extent it demands
fee under section 234E for the period from 2011-12 till 01.06.2015.
The writ petition is therefore allowed as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
vps
W.P.(C) No.24533/21
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24533/2021
PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE
ITBA/COM/17/2021-22/1035854594(1) DATED
24.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
