M/s. Olari Little Flower Kuries Pvt. Ltd. and Orion Holiday Resorts Ltd V. Union of India and Central Board of Direct Taxes and Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) and Commissioner of Income Tax and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

WA/600/2017

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ appeals and a writ petition concerning the imposition of late fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for delayed filing of TDS returns. The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of Section 234E and the applicability of late fees for periods before the amendment of Section 200A(1)(c) on 01.06.2015. The court examined the procedural and substantive changes brought by these sections and their amendments, considering various High Court judgments and a CBDT circular. The court's decision affirmed the validity of Section 234E and allowed the writ petition only for the periods prior to the specified date, based on the procedural rules applicable before the amendment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 803526 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Fatheraj, Rajesh Kourani, M/S Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M A VINOD
• Assessee Lawyers: G HARIHARAN; PRAVEEN
• Keywords: Constitutional Validity; Income Tax Act; Late fee; TDS returns
• Section: 234E; 200A(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 30TH ASWINA, 1943 WA NO. 600 OF 2017 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 11175/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: M/S. OLARI LITTLE FLOWER KURIES PVT. LTD. LITTLE FLOWER CHURCH, SHOPPING COMPLEX, OLARIKKARA, THRISSUR-680012, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN C.D.SUNNY BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT/S: 1 UNION OF INDIA NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, FINANCE DEPARTMENT - 110001 2 CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MININSTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110001 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682018 4 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001. 5 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL, TDS, AYAKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3 VAISHALI GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH - 201010. W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -2- BY ADV SRI.M.A.VINOD, CGC OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 22.10.2021, ALONG WITH WA.722/2019, 753/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -3- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 30TH ASWINA, 1943 WA NO. 722 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 37775/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/S: INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 003. BY ADV SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT/S: 1 M/S.SARALA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL KILIMANOOR-ATTINGAL ROAD, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695601, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. 2 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI. BY ADVS. SRI.D.SREEKUMAR SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -4- THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 22.10.2021, ALONG WITH WA.600/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -5- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 30TH ASWINA, 1943 WA NO. 753 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2857/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/S: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), AAYANKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA- 695003. BY ADV SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT/S: 1 M/S MAYI INDUSTRIES, TC 9/1179, MANGALAM LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MAYA V NAIR, R/AT T.C.9/1179, SREEKRISHNA VILASOM, MANGLAM LANE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI- 110001. W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -6- BY ADVS. SRI.D.SREEKUMAR SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 22.10.2021, ALONG WITH WA.600/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -7- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 30TH ASWINA, 1943 WA NO. 752 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2879/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/S: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AAYANKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM RESPONDENT/S: 1 M/S.ANADIYIL HOSPITAL, TC 12/226-I, THEKKUMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695035, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER DR. ARUNKUMAR, AGED 60 R/AT ANADIYIL, THEKKUMMODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695 035. 2 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI 110001 BY ADVS. SRI.D.SREEKUMAR SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -8- THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 22.10.2021, ALONG WITH WA.600/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -9- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 30TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 23205 OF 2017 PETITIONER/S: M/S ORION HOLIDAY RESORTS LTD ORION HOUSE, HIG-7PANAMPILLY NAGAR POST-682036.ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, P.P.PRADEEP KUMAR. BY ADVS. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW RESPONDENT/S: 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (REVENUE) TO GOVERNMENTDEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,ROOM NO.128-A, NORTH BLOCKNEW DELHI G.P.O POST-110001NEW DELHI DISTRICT, DELHI STATE. 2 CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,6TH FLOOR, MAYUR BHAWAN, CONNAUGHT CIRCUSNEW DELHI G.P.O POST-110001NEW DELHI DISTRICT, DELHI STATE. W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -10- 3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER H Q TDS OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOCHIINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS I.S.PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682018. 4 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)1ST FLOOR, POORNIMA, 28/243CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682018. SC SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 22.10.2021, ALONG WITH WA.600/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -11- J U D G M E N T [WA Nos.600/2017, 722/2019, 753/2019, 752/2019, 23205/2017] S.V. Bhatti, J. Heard Standing Counsel Mr Christopher Abraham, Adv. O Ramachandran Nambiar, Adv D S Sreekumaran and Adv. G Hariharan for parties. 2. The instant batch cases deal with an issue arising in the background of requirement of clause (c) of Section 200A(1) read with Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). W.A. No.600/2017 challenges the constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Act. The cases have been heard as batch matters. Though the petitioners/assessees are separate, we prefer to dispose of the appeals/petition by this W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -12- common judgment since the circumstances preceding the filing of the respective cases, grounds of challenge, etc are substantially same and similar. 2.1 W.A. Nos.722, 752 & 753/2019 are treated as lead matters, and the circumstances referred to and considered in W.A. No.722/2019 is stated as representative appeal. W.A.No.722/2019 3. The Income Tax Officer (TDS)/2nd respondent in the writ petition is the appellant. M/s. Sarala Memorial Hospital, represented by its Managing Partner/respondent herein is the writ petitioner. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition. The petitioner challenged Exts.P1 to P6, prayed for a writ of certiorari, quash Exts.P1 to P6 as illegal etc. Exts. P1 to P6 are intimations received by the writ petitioner under Section 154 of the Act calling upon the writ petitioner to pay W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -13- the amounts covered by respective intimations towards late fee for delayed filing of TDS returns, under Section 234E of the Act, for the Financial Years 2012-13 and 2013-14. 3.1 The petitioner effected tax deduction at source from the professional fees paid by the petitioner to individuals working with petitioner, in terms of Section 194(J) and had remitted the tax deducted at source to the credit of Central Government under Section 200(1) of the Act. According to respondents, the writ petitioner filed quarterly statements of deduction of tax at source as required under Section 200(3) belatedly for the Financial Year 2012-13, and for all the four quarters for the Financial Year 2013-14. The writ petitioner is under statutory obligation under Section 234E to pay late fee before submission of the returns. The belated quarterly statements submitted by the writ petitioner were processed W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -14- under Section 200A and intimations in Exts.P1 to P6, under Section 154 of the Act, were issued. 3.2 The case of the writ petitioner is that clause (c) of Section 200A(1) was inserted with effect from 01.06.2015. The intimations in Exts.P1 to P6, as noted above, relate to Financial Years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The writ petitioner relied on the CBDT circular no.19 of 2015 which clarified the date of coming into effect of clause (c) of Section 200A(1) of the Act as 01.06.2015. The case of respondent is that clause (c) of Section 200A(1) is procedural and clarificatory in nature, would have retrospective operation. The effective dates of operation are not in dispute. The argument of respondents is that the amendment to Section 200A(1) by insertion of clause (c) is clarificatory and deals with procedure, the learned Judge ought not to have held and declared that the impugned intimations W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -15- are illegal because clause (c) of Section 200A(1) has come into force with effect from 01.06.2015 and in other words does not have retrospective operation. 4. Mr Christopher Abraham reiterated the very argument which did not find favour in the judgment under appeal. According to him, Section 234E is rendered ineffective between the period 01.07.2012 and 31.05.2015 if the subject clause is held as operative with effect from 01.06.2015. 5. Adv D S Sreekumaran appearing for the writ petitioner contends that the CBDT Circular is one of the main reasons which convinced the learned Single Judge to accept the contention of petitioner. The respondent/Revenue does not deal with the effect and applicability of Circular referred to in the judgment for challenging the impugned judgment. 6. The grounds raised against the judgment under W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -16- appeal are dealing with the very same arguments considered by the learned Single Judge. It is useful, at this juncture, to excerpt the operative portion of the learned Single Judge's judgment: “9. Interpreting Section 200A and Section 234E, the Karnataka High Court has held in Fatheraj that when the statute confers no express power under section 200A before 01.06.2015 on the authority either to compute and collect any fee under section 234E, the demand for the period before 01.06.2015 could not be sustained. Fatheraj in fact observes: 14. We may now deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The first contention for assailing the legality and validity of the intimation under section 200A was that, the provision of section 200A(1)(c), (d) and (f) have come into force only with effect from 1.6.2015 and hence, there was no authority or competence or jurisdiction on the part of the concerned Officer or the Department to compute and determine the fee under section 234E in respect of the assessment year of the earlier period and the return filed for the said respective assessment years namely all assessment years and the returns prior to 1.6.2015. It was submitted that when no express authority was conferred by the statute under section 200A prior to 1.6.2015 for computation of any fee under section 234E nor the W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -17- determination thereof, the demand or the intimation for the previous period or previous year prior to 1.6.2015 could not have been made. 10. But the Gujarat High Court has taken a contrary stand in Rajesh Kourani. It has held: \"In plain terms, Section 200A is a machinery provision providing mechanism for processing a statement of deduction of tax at source and for making adjustments, which are, as noted earlier, arithmetical or prima facie in nature. With effect from 1.6.2015, this provision specifically provides for computing the fee payable under Section 234E. On the other hand, Section 234E is the charging provision creating a charge for levying fee for certain defaults in filing the statements. Under no circumstances a machinery provision can override or overrule a charging provision. Section 200A does not create any charge in any manner. It only provides a mechanism for processing a statement for tax deduction and the method in which the same would be done. When Section 234E has already created a charge for levying fee that would thereafter not have been necessary to have another provision creating the same charge. Viewing Section 200A as creating a new charge would bring about a dichotomy. In plain terms, the provision is a machinery provision and at best provides for a mechanism for processing and computing besides other, fee payable under section 234E for late filing of the statements\". W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -18- 11. There is a cleavage in judicial opinion. But I am afraid, elaborate as the judgment may be in Rajesh Kourani, it does not seem to have considered the Circular No.19 of 2015, which in para 47.3 clarifies: \"47.3 Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 inserted section 200A in the Income-tax Act which provides for processing of TDS statements for determining the amount payable or refundable to the deductor. However, as section 243E was inserted after the insertion of section 200A of the Income-tax Act, the existing provisions of section 200A of the Income Tax Act did not provide for determination of fee payable under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act at the time of processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the provisions of Section 200A of the Income Tax Act has been amended so as to enable computation of fee payable under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act at the time of processing of TDS Statement under Section 200A of the Income Tax Act.\" (italics supplied) 6.1 A Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in W.A. Nos.2663-2674/2015 was answering the question whether clause (c) of Section 200A(1) is prospective or retrospective. The Division Bench held as follows: W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -19- “20. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, two aspects may transpire one, for Section 234E providing for fee and given privilege to the defaulter if he pays the fee and hence, when a privilege is given for a particular purpose which in the present case is to come out from rigors of penal provision of Section 271H(1)(a), it cannot be said that the provisions of fee since creates a counter benefit or reciprocal benefit in favour of the defaulter in the rigors of the penal provision, the provisions of Section 234E would meet with the test of quid pro quo 21. However, if Section 234E providing for fee was brought on the state book, keeping in view the aforesaid purpose and the intention then, the other mechanism provided for computation of fee and failure for payment of fee under Section 200A which has been brought about with effect from 1.6.2015 cannot be said as only by way of a regulatory mode or a regulatory mechanism but it can rather be termed as conferring substantive power upon the authority. It is true that, a regulatory mechanism by insertion of any provision made in the statute book, may have a retroactive character but, whether such provision provides for a mere regulatory mechanism or confers substantive power upon the authority would also be a aspect which may be required to be considered W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -20- before such provisions is held to be retroactive in nature. Further, when any provision is inserted for liability to pay any tax or the fee by way of compensatory in nature or fee independently simultaneously mode and the manner of its enforceability is also required to be considered and examined. Not only that, but, if the mode and the manner is not expressly prescribed, the provisions may also be vulnerable. All such aspects will be required to be considered before one considers regulatory mechanism or provision for regulating the mode and the manner of recovery and its enforceability as retroactive. If at the time when the fee was provided under Section 234E, the Parliament also provided for its utility for giving privilege under Section 271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for respondent-Revenue that insertion of clause (c) to (f) under Section 200A(1) should be treated as retroactive in character and not prospective. W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -21- 22. It is hardly required to be stated that, as per the well established principles of interpretation of statute, unless it is expressly provided or impliedly demonstrated, any provision of statute is to be read as having prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Under the circumstances, we find that substitution made by clause (c) to (t) of sub-section (1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand under Section 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under Section 234E could not be made in purported exercise of power under Section 200A by the respondent for the period of the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. However, we make it clear that, if any deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received under Section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen the said question unless he has made payment under protest. 23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation given by the respondent Department against all the appellants under Section 200A are so far as they are for the period prior to 1.6.2015 can be said as without any authority under law. Hence, the same can be said as illegal and invalid.” W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -22- 6.2 Firstly, we are convinced with the reasoning and basis for the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the judgment under appeal, and secondly, the view taken by the Karnataka High Court in the judgment referred to above is to the same effect. Keeping in view the grounds of challenge and the view taken by this Court as well as the Karnataka High Court in the judgment referred to above, we are of the view that the appeal at the instance of 2nd respondent is without merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly dismissed. W.A. Nos.752 & 753/2019 7. These two appeals are at the instance of the Revenue and are similar to the issues dealt with by this Court in W.A. No.722/2019. For the reasons stated supra, the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -23- W.A. No.600/2017 8. M/s.Olari Little Flower Kuries Pvt. Ltd/writ petitioner is the appellant. The challenge laid by the writ petitioner on the validity of Section 234E of the Act was negatived. Hence the appeal. 8.1 Mr Christopher Abraham relies on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India1 wherein it has been held and declared that Section 234E is intra vires Constitution of India. 8.2 By following the judgment in Rashmikant Kundalia case, W.A. No.600/2017 stands dismissed. No order as to costs. W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 9. M/s.Orion Holiday Resorts Ltd is the petitioner. The petitioner prays for the following reliefs: “a). to declare that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as 1 (2015) 373 ITR 268 (Bom) W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -24- inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, making a person liable to pay, by way of \"FEE\", a sum of Rs.200/- for every day for the delay in filing the statement referred to in such Section 200 (3) or Section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal, arbitrary, invalid and unconstitutional. b). to declare that the levy in the nature of \"FEE\" as per Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the person who fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time specified in Section 200 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and is violative of Article 14 and 19(g) of the Constitution of India. c), to declare that levy of \"FEE\" under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without granting an opportunity to the concerned person and also without vesting any powers on the Income Tax Officer to either waive or delete such fee is highly illegal, arbitrary and invalid. d). to issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, direction or order quashing Exhibits P1, P1 (a), P1 (b), P1 (c); Exhibits P2, P2 (a), P2 (b), P2 (c); Exhibits P3, P3 (a), P3 (b), P3 (c) and Exhibits P4, P4 (a), P4 (b) intimations issued by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner. e), to issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, direction or order quashing Exhibits P9 and P10 orders. W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -25- f). to issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, direction or order restraining the respondents from enforcing Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the petitioner. g). to call for the entire records relating to Exhibits P9 and P10 orders. h). to award costs of the writ petition from the respondents. And i). to grant such and other reliefs as may be deemed just and necessary for the facts and circumstances of the case.” 9.1 Stated briefly, the writ petitioner challenges the intimation received under Section 200A from the respondent/Revenue calling upon the writ petitioner to pay late fee for delayed filing of quarterly statements of TDS. The periods for which the notices are issued are stated as prior to 01.06.2015. By following the judgment in W.P.(C) No.37775/2018, as confirmed in W.A. No.722/2019, the writ petition stands allowed and the intimations dealing with filing of belated statements prior to 01.06.2015 are set aside. A return W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -26- filed subsequent to 01.06.2015 is present, the respondents are given liberty to issue notice, hear the writ petitioner, and pass orders in accordance with law. Writ Petition allowed as indicated above. Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Sd/- BASANT BALAJI JUDGE jjj W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -27- APPENDIX OF WA 753/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A JUDGMENT DATED 18/12/2018 IN WP(C)NO.37775/2018 IN THE CASE OF M/S.SARALA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL V.UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -28- APPENDIX OF WA 752/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A JUDGMENT DATED 18/12/2018 IN WP(C)NO.37775/2018 IN THE CASE OF M/S.SARALA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL V.UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -29- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23205/2017 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 12.09.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER I OF F.Y.2013-14. EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 26.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2013-14. EXHIBIT P1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 12.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2013-14. EXHIBIT P1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 12.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 4 OF F.Y.2013-14. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 04.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 1 OF F.Y.2014-15. EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 04.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2013-14. EXHIBIT P2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 04.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2014-15. EXHIBIT P2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 04.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 4 OF F.Y.2014-15. W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -30- EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 04.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 1 OF F.Y.2015-16. EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 12.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2015-16. EXHIBIT P3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 08.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 3 OF F.Y.2015-16. EXHIBIT P3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 08.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 4 OF F.Y.2015-16. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 04.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 1 OF F.Y.2016-17. EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 04.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2016-17. EXHIBIT P4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 29.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y.2016-17. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBITS P1 SERIES ORDERS. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBITS P2 SERIES ORDERS. W.A. Nos.600/2017; 722, 752, 753/2019 & W.P.(C) No.23205/2017 -31- EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBITS P3 SERIES ORDERS. EXHIBIT P8` TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBITS P4 SERIES ORDERS. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION ORDER NO.CIT(TDS)KOCHI/STAY/2017-18 DATED 05.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. "