Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI • Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions • Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations • Issue-wise legal analysis • Practical arguments and supporting content • Professionally structured draft ready for further review.
Court quashes notice for late filing fees pre-amendment, citing prospective nature of law. The court quashed the notice demanding late filing fees under section 234E of the Income Tax Act for the period from 2011-12 to 01.06.2015, ruling that ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Court quashes notice for late filing fees pre-amendment, citing prospective nature of law.
The court quashed the notice demanding late filing fees under section 234E of the Income Tax Act for the period from 2011-12 to 01.06.2015, ruling that the petitioner cannot be held liable for the fee before the amendment's effective date. The judgment in M/s.Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of India and Another was cited, establishing the prospective nature of the amendment. As a result, the demand notice for the specified period was deemed unauthorized and legally unsustainable, providing partial relief to the petitioner.
Issues: Late filing fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the periods from 2011-12 to 2019-20.
Analysis: The petitioner was called upon to pay the late filing fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 through a notice dated 02.02.2021. The demand was for an amount of Rs.3,26,760/- for the periods from 2011-12 to 2019-20. Section 234E of the Act imposes a fee for default in furnishing statements, and the petitioner was being demanded this fee for not filing the statement of tax deduction at source. Despite the introduction of section 234E by the Finance Act, 2012, the petitioner argued that they cannot be held liable for the late fee before 01.06.2015, citing section 200A(1) of the Act which was incorporated with effect from 01.06.2015.
During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel referred to a previous decision in M/s.Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of India and Another, where a similar question was considered. The court in that case held that the amendment to the Act would only take effect from 1st June, 2015, making it prospective in nature. The petitioner argued that this judgment is final and binding on the authorities. Based on this argument, the demand notice for the period from 2011-12 to the first quarter of 2015-16 was deemed bereft of authority and legally unsustainable.
Consequently, the court quashed the notice to the extent it demanded the fee under section 234E for the period from 2011-12 till 01.06.2015. The writ petition was allowed in part, providing relief to the petitioner for the specified period.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.