EUROTECH MARITIME ACADEMY PRIVATE LIMITED V. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

WP(C)/29655/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Eurotech Maritime Academy (P) Ltd., the petitioner, challenging the demands for late filing fees under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Income Tax Officer (TDS) for the financial years 2012-13 to 2014-15. The petitioner argued that the legal provisions allowing for such fees were not applicable to the periods in question as they came into effect only on June 1, 2015. The respondents, including the Income Tax Officer and the Central Board of Direct Taxes, defended the imposition of these fees. The court's decision was influenced by a precedent set in a similar case, M/s.Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of India, which held that the amendments to the Act were prospective and not retroactive.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686775 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: M/s.Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of India and Another (W.P.(C) No.37775 of 2018)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM; S MANU
• Assessee Lawyers: BABU JOSEPH
• Keywords: Late filing fee; Section 200A; Section 234E; Tax deduction at source
• Section: 234E; 200A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 17TH POUSHA, 1943 W.P.(C) NO.29655 OF 2021 PETITIONER: EUROTECH MARITIME ACADEMY (P) LTD., OPP. TVS, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. (REPRESENTED BY SRI. BABU JOSEPH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR) BY ADVS. K.N.SREEKUMARAN P.J.ANILKUMAR (A-1768) N.SANTHOSHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AAYKAR BHAVAN, I.S.PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 018. 2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CPC, AAYKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GAZHIABAD, UTTARPRADESH-201 010. 3 CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 4 UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1-R3 ADV.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, STANDING COUNSEL R4 ADV.S.MANU, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.29655 OF 2021 -2- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.29655 of 2021 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2022 JUDGMENT By Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 intimations, 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 intimations, amounts have been demanded as late fee for the periods from 2012-13 to 2014-15 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 1st 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 Act. Section 200A(1) incorporated clause (c) to clause (f) W.P.(C) NO.29655 OF 2021 -3- 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 Sri.K.N.Sreekumaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 as well as Sri.S.Manu, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the 4th 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 1st June, 2015 and is thus prospective in nature. It is submitted that the aforesaid judgment has become final and is binding upon the authorities. W.P.(C) NO.29655 OF 2021 -4- 6. In view of the above, the demand in Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 intimations for the period from 2012-13 to 2014-15 is bereft of authority and cannot be legally sustainable. 7. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 intimations to the extent it demands late fee under section 234E for the assessment years from 2012-13 till 2014-15. The writ petition is therefore allowed as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE bpr W.P.(C) NO.29655 OF 2021 -5- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF LEVY U/S 234E, AGAINST 24A OF Q4 FOR F.Y 2012-13 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF LEVY U/S 234E, AGAINST 24A OF Q4 FOR F.Y 2013-14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF LEVY U/S 234E, AGAINST 24A OF Q4 FOR F.Y 2014-15 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER "