Court Dismisses Petition Challenging TDS Late Fee Due to 10-Year Delay; Upholds Section 234E of Income Tax Act.

The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging late fee intimations for not filing TDS statements on time, citing an inordinate delay of over ten years in filing the petition. The court upheld the applicability of Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which imposes a late fee for such delays, as it was the law in effect when the notices were issued. The court rejected arguments based on subsequent amendments, affirming that the law at the time of notice issuance governs the case.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the impugning of late fee intimations for not filing TDS statements within the prescribed time under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the applicability of Section 234E regarding late fee charges.

Impugning Exhibits P-1 to P-5 Intimations:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging Exhibits P-1 to P-5 intimations for late fee payment due to not filing TDS statements within the specified time for the assessment year 2012-13. The court noted the inordinate delay of over ten years in approaching the court to challenge these intimations, leading to dismissal of the writ petition based on delay and laches.

Applicability of Section 234E - Late Fee Provision:
The judgment highlighted Section 234E inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, which imposes a late fee of Rs. 200 per day for failure to submit statements within the prescribed time under the Income Tax Act. The court emphasized that the law applicable at the time of issuing the notices was crucial, and subsequent amendments, unless retrospective, cannot be considered. The court rejected the argument that an amendment in Section 200A from 2015 could invalidate the notices issued in 2013 and 2016, as the law in force at the time of notice issuance was Section 234E from the Finance Act, 2012.

Conclusion:
The judgment concluded that the writ petition was to be dismissed due to significant delay, laches, and on the merits of the case, emphasizing the importance of considering the law in effect at the time of issuing notices rather than subsequent amendments.

---