- CA Saurabh Chokhra
- | Income Tax - Judiciary
- 08 Feb 2017
- 8,388 Views
- 1 comment
Case Law Details
Case Name : Sri. Fatheraj Singhvi And Others Vs. UOI And others (Karnataka High Court)
Appeal Number : Writ Petition No-2663-2674/2015 and
Date of Judgement/Order : 26.08.2016
Related Assessment Year : 2013-14 and 2014-15
Courts : All High Courts Karnataka High Court
CA Saurabh Chokhra
Brief of the case:
- The Hon’ble Karnataka High court in the above cited case held that since before 01.06.2015 section 234E providing for late fee for delay filling of TDS returns was not linked to / not referred under Sec 200A processing of TDS returns. As a result of this the late fee charge was invalid and illegal.
- Therefore, no late fees for delayed filling of TDS returns prior to 01.06.2015 can be levied.
Facts of the case:
- The petitioners (assessees) , for the financial year 2012-13 and 2013-14 tax deducted at source was deducted by the respective petitioners and they were also deposited with govt. However, as per the respondent, there was delay in filing of the return/statements with the details of the persons from whom the TDS was deducted including the details of the persons concerned and the transaction etc.
- Hence, the respondent-Department issued demand notices under Section 200A of the Act calling upon the respective petitioners to pay late filing fee under Section 234E of the Act in purported exercise of the power under Section 200A of the Act.
- All the petitioners approached this Court by challenging the constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Act contending that there is no service being rendered to the petitioners/deductors by the respondent-Department and therefore, consequently, the principles of quid pro quo is not available nor the charging of fee by the department is having any nexus to any service to be rendered to the deductor.
- The learned Single Judge after hearing all the respective petitioners and the respondents for the reasons recorded in the impugned order ultimately found that, Section 234E is not suffering from any vices for being declared as ultra vires to the Constitution and he held that the impugned Section 234E of the Act is intra vires to the Constitution and ultimately dismissed all the petitions.
- Aggrieved petitioners are therefore, in appeal with the larger bench of the court.
Held by Hon’ble High Court:
- Before analyzing the issue court decoded the legal provisions of the Act. On 1.4.2010, Section 200A was inserted providing for the processing of the TDS statement and the consequent issuance of the intimation to the deductor, the same determined as payable by it or refundable by it.
- On 1.7.2012, Section 234E providing for levying of fee of Rs.200/- per day for each day of default in filing TDS statement was inserted.
- On 1.6.2015, clauses (c) to (f) were inserted to Section 200A providing that the fee under Section 234E can be computed at the time of processing of the return and the intimation could be issued specifying the same payable by the deductor as fee under Section 234E of the Act.
- Substitution made by clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect because unless it is expressly provided or impliedly demonstrated, any provision of statute is to be read as having prospective effect and not retrospective effect.
- As such, 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 department for the period of the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015 as at that point of time there was no reference to Sec 234E under 200A.
- Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the department authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent.
- In result the petitions are allowed.
Click here to Read other Articles of CA Saurabh Chokhra
Kindly Refer to Privacy Policy & Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Author Bio
Name: CA Saurabh Chokhra
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: N/A
Location: Hyderabad, Telangana, IN
Member Since: 19 Aug 2018 | Total Posts: 243
My Published Posts
More Under Income Tax
One Comment
Leave a Comment
Latest Posts
- Join GST, Customs & Income Tax Courses at 40% Discount till 31st July
- Marriage Gifts And Its Taxation
- IT deduction cannot be claimed during section 153A Assessment if not claimed in original assessment proceedings
- HC’s judgment to prevail over CBIC Circular in case of contrary views
- Dynamic QR Code under GST
- Papad of any size and shape will attract NIL GST: AAR Gujarat
- ITC cannot be denied merely for non-reflection of transaction in GSTR 2A
- Third Party Insurance Deemed to be Transferred Along With Effective Control Over Vehicle in a Hire Agreement
- A brief description of Section 9B & 45(4) along with rule and guidelines (income tax provision on reconstitution of firm or AOP or BOI)
- Analysing Cross Margin in Commodity Index Futures and Its Underlying Constituent Futures or Its Variants: SEBI
- 58 transfer/postings of officers in the grade of CCIT/DGIT
Popular Posts
- Join GST, Customs & Income Tax Courses at 40% Discount till 31st July
- Join Online Course on Advanced Excel & GST Compliances for Professionals
- 26 Issues in New Income Tax Portal
- SC dismisses plea against use of acronym ‘ICAI’ by Institute of Cost Accountants of India
- TDS Returns & Compliance – Use a Reliable Software
Featured Posts
- Join GST, Customs & Income Tax Courses at 40% Discount till 31st July
- Important GST & Income Tax Weekly Newsletter dt. 24.07.2021
- Join Online Course on Advanced Excel & GST Compliances for Professionals
- GST Returns, GST Ledgers & HSN Directory- New Functionality
- Empanelment with Punjab & Sind Bank for Concurrent Audit
whether late filing of income return for year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 1,2,3 quarter is waived for govt aided aided school