BHAGYANAGAR VENTURES PVT.LTD V. UNION OF INDIA.,FINANCE DEPT., AND 3 OTHERS

WP/7400/2014

AI Insights

In this case, Bhagyanagar Ventures Pvt. Limited, represented by its CFO, challenged the constitutionality of Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which imposes a daily fee for delayed submission of certain tax statements. The petitioner argued that this provision was discriminatory, arbitrary, unreasonable, and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The respondents included various government bodies and officials responsible for tax collection and enforcement. The High Court of Telangana, referencing a similar case decided by the Delhi High Court, dismissed the petition, affirming the legality of the contested provision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 734103 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Biswajit Das vs. Union of India and Others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GADI KUMARI R; B SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: Y RAO
• Keywords: Arbitrary; Discriminatory; Mandamus; Unreasonable; Writ petition; Violation of Articles 14 and 19; Fee for delay in submission of statements
• Section: 234E; 200A; 200; 206C

Judgement Text

"[ 33e3 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITION NO: 7400 OF 2014 Between: Bhagyanagar Ventures Pvt. Limited, Represented by its Chief Financial Officer, Mr-Surendra Bhutoria, Office 5\"' Floor, Surya Towers, S.P.Road, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND 1 Union Of lndia, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of lndia, Finance Department, New Delhi - 100 001- Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, New Delhi - 1 10 001 . The Commissioner of lncome Tax (TDS), l.T.Towers, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome tax, Centralized Processing Cell (TDS), Aayakar Bhavan, Sector No.3. Vaishali, Ghaziabad - 201 0'10, Uttar Pradesh. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of lvlandamus or any other writ, order or direction, declaring that the provisions of Section 234E of the LT. Act providing for levy of fee 200 per day for delay rn the submission of statements referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 200 or the proviso to Sub-Section (3) to Section 206-C are discriminatory, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 19(t )(g) of the Constitution of lndia and consequently to set aside that the levy of fee on the petitioner company under Section 234E for lhe F.Y.2012-13 relevant to 2 J 4 A.Y .2013-14 vide intimetions passed under Section 2004 datetl 16.1 1 .201 3 by the Respondent No.4 as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable. l.A. NO: I OF 2014(WPMP. NO:9179 OF 20141 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying ,thbt in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased lo stay of collection of the fee aggregating to Rs.25,600/- levied und,-'r Section 234E ol the l.T.Act forthe F.Y.20'12- 13 relevant to A.Y.20'13-14 under intimations passed under Section 200A of the l.T.Act dated 16.11.2013 by the Respondent No.4, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Y. KOTESWARA RAO, REPRESENTING FOR SRI Y RATNAKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMI R, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENI:RAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI B. NARASIMHA S,qRMA, SC The Court made the following: ORDER TIIE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKAITTI WRIT PETITION No.7400 OF 2014 BDE& @rr rhe Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) Mr. Y. Koteswara Rao, leamed counsel, representing Mr. Y. Ratnakar, leamed counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of Section 234(E) of the Income Tax Act, 196 I . 3. The validity of the aforesaid provision has already been upheld by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Biswajit Das vs. Union of India and Othersl. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the Delhi High Court. 4. For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid decision, this writ petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed' There shall be no order as to costs t 1zors1 413 lrR e2 (Del) SD/- K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REG]STRAR To, . Two CD CoPies TJ KKS ,TRUE coPY/ I IV----- SECTIO( OFFICER One CC to Sri Y. Ratnakar, Advocate tOPUql one cc to Sri Gadi praveen Ail;'Dd;rly^sblicitor General of lndia[oPUC] . ffi;6 iX 5iielN,\"'imha Sarma sc [oPUCl I 2 3 4 HIGH COURT DATED:21 10312024 ORDER WP.No.7400 of 2014 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. 16: 14 1$E s R .3 ,:. C :.J :: I z 15 lqAY 2fi24 ii i- 55<-nr.r._-,.- .: \" -a^ ,- ,_-,-.\"r-'' t\"q'. qck a) '? i . i I t I t: ii t i I I %- "