Vadakkancheri Grama Panchayath V. Union of India and Central Board of Direct Taxes and Commissioner of Income TaxTDS and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

WP(C)/27629/2014

AI Insights

The writ petition filed by M/s. Vadakkancheri Grama Panchayath challenged the constitutionality of Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which imposes a fee of Rs. 200 for each day of delay in filing certain tax statements. The petitioner argued that this section is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 and 19(g) of the Constitution of India. The case was disposed of based on the judgment in Olari Little Flower Kuries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which had addressed similar issues.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699458 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Olari Little Flower Kuries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and others [2022 440 ITR 26 (Ker)]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P K R M MENON; JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; MEERA MENON
• Keywords: Arbitrary; Delay in filing; Discriminatory; Fee; Income Tax; Invalid; Unconstitutional; Unreasonable; Writ of Certiorari; Writ of Mandamus; Violate Article 14; Violate Article 19(g)
• Section: 234E; 200; 206C

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 27629 OF 2014 PETITIONER: M/S. VADAKKANCHERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PALAKKAD-678783, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2 CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110 001. 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXTDS CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 018. 4 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, AYAKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201 010. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 27629 OF 2014 2 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 27629 of 2014 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 04th day of April, 2023 JUDGMENT The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “(a) To declare that section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as 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 sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206 C is illegal, arbitrary, invalid and unconstitutional. (b) To declare that the levy in the nature of \"fee\" as per section 234E of the Act on the person who fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time specified in sub-section (3) of Section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206 C of the Act 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 234 E of the Act without granting an WP(C) NO. 27629 OF 2014 3 opportunity to the concerned person and also without vesting any powers on the Income Tax Authorities to either waive or delete such fee is highly illegal, arbitrary and invalid. (d) To call for the records leading to the issuance of Exts. P1 to P1 (g) by the 4th respondent and to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. (e) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, restraining the respondents from enforcing section 234E of the Income Tax Act. (f) To issue such other appropriate writ, order or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper to issue in the facts and circumstances of the case.”[SIC] 2. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the department submitted that the point raised in this writ petition is covered as per the judgment in Olari Little Flower Kuries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and others [2022 440 ITR 26 (Ker)]. In the light of the above submission, this writ WP(C) NO. 27629 OF 2014 4 petition is disposed of in tune with the judgment in Olari Little Flower Kuries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and others. Consequently, Exts.P1 to P1(g) intimations are quashed. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN DM JUDGE WP(C) NO. 27629 OF 2014 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27629/2014 PETITIONER EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE INTIMATION FROM THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT UNDER SECTION 200A. P1A. COPY OF THE INTIMATION FROM THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT UNDER SECTION 200A. P1B. COPY OF THE INTIMATION FROM THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT UNDER SECTION 200A. P1C. COPY OF THE INTIMATION FROM THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT UNDER SECTION 200A. P1D. COPY OF THE INTIMATION FROM THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT UNDER SECTION 200A. P1E. COPY OF THE INTIMATION FROM THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT UNDER SECTION 200A. P1F. COPY OF THE INTIMATION FROM THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT UNDER SECTION 200A. P1G. COPY OF THE INTIMATION FROM THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT UNDER SECTION 200A. P2. COPY OF ORDER IN WPC NO. 31498/13 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE "