M/S. ALAMPALLY PRESSURE TESTING COMPANY PRIVATE LTD V. UNION OF INDIA

WP(C)/39451/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Alampally Pressure Testing Company Private Ltd., which filed a writ petition against the Union of India and other respondents, challenging the intimations for late fee payments for not filing TDS statements on time as prescribed under Section 200(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The intimations were issued for the assessment year 2012-13, and the petitioner contested them after a significant delay. The court dismissed the petition based on the delay in filing and the merits of the case, affirming the application of Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates a late fee for delayed TDS filings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 725041 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P © No.29120/ 2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Finance Act, 2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOESEPH JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: A KUMAR; P J ANILKUMAR; G MINI; P S SREE PRASAD
• Keywords: Inordinate delay; Intimations; Laches; Late fee; TDS
• Section: 234E; 200A; 200; 206C

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 39451 OF 2023 PETITIONER: M/S. ALAMPALLY PRESSURE TESTING COMPANY PRIVATE LTD., A. NO. VII/108, PUTHENVEEDU PALACE ROAD, ALUVA ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SHRI. E. T. JOSEPH, PIN – 683101. BY ADVS. SRI. A. KUMAR SRI. P. J. ANILKUMAR SMT. G. MINI SRI. P. S. SREE PRASAD RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY ITS' SECRETARY, PIN – 110001. 2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL- TDS TDS CPS, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR -3, VAISHALI, GAZIBAD, UTTARPRADESH, PIN – 201010. 3 CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS' CHAIRMAN, PIN – 110002. BY ADV. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH – GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 39451 OF 2023 2 DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C) No.39451 of 2023 ------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of November, 2023 JUDGMENT 1. The present writ petition has been filed impugning Exhibits P-1 to P-5 intimations to the petitioner for payment of late fee for not filing statements in respect of the TDS collected by the petitioner within the time prescribed in Sub Section 3 of Section 200 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said intimations are in respect of the assessment year 2012-13 and they are issued in November, 2013 (Exhibits P-1 to P-3) and October, 2016 (Exhibits P-4 and P-5). The petitioner has approached this Court after more than ten years impugning the said intimations in Exhibits P-1 to P-5. This writ petition is liable to be dismissed only on the simple ground of inordinate delay and laches in filing the writ petition impugning the intimations in Exhibits P-1 to P-5 which are issued way back in 2013 and 2016. 2. The other aspect of the matter is that Section 234E which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012 is specifically provides that for failure to deliver the statement within the time WP(C) NO. 39451 OF 2023 3 prescribed under Sub-Section (3) of Section 200 or the proviso to Sub- section (3) of section 206C to charge the assessee with a late fee, a sum of Rs. 200/- for every day during which the failure continues. 3. When the impugned notices were issued, this was the law in respect of the payment of the late fee. It cannot be denied that what was to be considered when the notices were issued was the law prevailing on the said date. Subsequent amendment, unless it has retrospective effect, cannot be considered. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the amendment in Section 200A has been brought into effect w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and, therefore, the impugned notices issued way back in 2013 and 2016 are incorrect is liable to be rejected at the threshold. The law on the date when the impugned notices were issued was as provided under Section 234E which had been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012. 4. In view thereof, I find this writ petition is to be dismissed on the ground of gross delay and laches as well as on merits. Sd/- DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE Svn WP(C) NO. 39451 OF 2023 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39451/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 16/11/2013 FOR 3RD QUARTER 24Q IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 18/11/2013 FOR 4TH QUARTER 24Q IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 19/11/2013 FOR 2ND QUARTER 24Q IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 03/10/2016 FOR 3RD QUARTER 26Q IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 03/10/2016 FOR 4TH QUARTER 26Q IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P © NO.29120/ 2023 DATED 05/09/2023 "