Kerala High Court
Vanchinad Forgings (P) Ltd vs Income Tax Officer (Tds) on 14 March, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
WP(C) NO. 2877 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:21920
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 2877 OF 2025
PETITIONER :
VANCHINAD FORGINGS (P) LTD.
XIII/753, VANCHINAD FORGINGS, ROAD NO A6, NIDA,
KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BYITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR, SRI. ARUN KUMAR JAIN., PIN - 678621
BY ADVS.
PADMANATHAN K.V.
R.SREEJITH
RESPONDENTS :
1 INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),
AAYKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678101
2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS,
AAYKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI,
GAZIABAD, UTTARPRADESH, PIN - 201010
3 UNION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT,
NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN - 110 001
BY ADVS.
ADV. P.G. JAYASHANKAR, SENIOR, SC
KEERTHIVAS GIRI, SC
WP(C) NO. 2877 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:21920
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 2877 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:21920
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
W.P.(C).No.2877 of 2025
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 14th day of March, 2025
JUDGMENT
As an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, petitioner had deducted TDS for payments made by him and remitted the same to the Income Tax Department. While filing the statement of returns regarding the remittance of TDS, delay occurred. When the returns were processed, the second respondent, on noticing the delay in filing the statement of TDS remittance, levied late fee under section 234E of the Act.
2. By Ext.P1 to Ext.P4 intimations, petitioner was called upon to pay the late filing fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short,'the Act'). As per the aforesaid intimations, amounts have been demanded as late fee for the periods from 2012-13 onwards 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. According to the petitioner, though section 234E of the Act WP(C) NO. 2877 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:21920 was introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1st July, 2012, since petitioner is being demanded to pay, by Ext.P1 to Ext.P4, late fee for not filing the statement of tax deduction at source, it is necessary to refer to section 200A of the Act. It was further submitted that Section 200A(1) incorporated clause (c) only with effect from 01.06.2015. Sub- clause (c) 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. Though the learned Standing Counsel sought time to file a statement, I am of the view that in the light of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.1259 of 2022 and other similar judgments, the necessity of a statement does not arise. However, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently objected to the grant of any relief to the petitioner in the light of the long delay in challenging the intimation.
5. I have heard Sri.P.Padmanathan K.V., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.P.G.Jayashankar, the learned Senior Standing Counsel as well as Sri.G.Keerthivas, the learned Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents.
6. In the decision in M/s.Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of India and Another (W.P.(C) No.37775 of 2018) an identical question WP(C) NO. 2877 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:21920 arose for consideration. After considering the statutory provisions of section 234E and section 200A of the Act and the implications of the amendment brought in the Act, it was held that the amendment would take effect only from 1st June, 2015 and is thus prospective in nature. The aforesaid judgment has become final and is binding upon the authorities. Thus the jurisdiction to levy late fee under section 234E arises only from 01-06.2015 and not earlier.
7. As regards the contention on delay, it can be seen that the nature of challenge raised by the petitioner is based upon the lack of jurisdiction of the respondents to impose late fee. Since in matters where total lack of jurisdiction is alleged, delay cannot be relied upon as a ground to deny the relief, this Court is of the view that the objections of the respondents are without any basis.
8. Further the decisions cited are distinguishable on the facts of those cases itself. In the decision in Digambar's case (supra), the delay of 20 years in approaching the High Court for grant of compensation for alleged utilization of the land was held as a decisive factor to disentitle the petitioner therein. Similarly in G.C.Gupta's case (supra) the issue related to seniority and petitioners challenged the orders of confirmation and determination of inter se seniority only after 15 years. In the decision in Bhailal Bhai's case (supra) the question related to refund of tax claimed belatedly. None of those cases related to a total lack of WP(C) NO. 2877 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:21920 jurisdiction or authority.
9. In view of the above, the demand in Ext.P1 to Ext.P4 intimations for the period from 2012-13 is bereft of authority and cannot be legally sustainable.
Accordingly, I quash Ext.P1 to Ext.P4 intimations to the extent it demand late fee under section 234E for the period from 2012-13.
The writ petition is therefore allowed as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM WP(C) NO. 2877 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:21920 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2877/2025 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION DATED 10.9.20213 FOR 2ND QUARTER OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-2013 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION DATED 10.9.20213 FOR 3RD QUARTER OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-2013 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION DATED 10.9.20213 FOR 4TH QUARTER OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-2013 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION DATED 10.9.20213 FOR 4TH QUARTER OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-2013 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION DATED 26.12.2024 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 24.3.2022 IN W.P(C) 1259 OF 2022