Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2023 (6) TMI 868

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....egarding levy of 'late fee' u/s 234E of the Act; and main plea of the assessee against the imposition of late fees u/s 234E of the Act is that since the cause of action in both the appeals took place before 01.06.2015, the levy of 'late fee' u/s 234E of the Act is bad in law since the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Sarala Memorial Hospital Vs. Union of India held that the amendment brought in by insertion of clause 'C' in section 200A(1) of the Act [Processing of statements of tax deducted at source] is prospective in nature; and that only post 01.06.2015, processing of return entails levy of late fee as envisaged u/s 234E of the Act. It would be gainful to refer to the relevant extracts of the order of the Hon'ble Hi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ay of tax or interest; (d) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent to the deductor specifying the sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to him under clause (c); and (e) amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination under clause (c) shall be granted to the deductor; (f) the amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination under clause (d) shall be granted to the deductor; Provided that no intimation under this sub-section shall be sent after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "an incorrect claim apparent from ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be (3) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C." 9. Interpreting Section 200A and Section 234E, the Karnataka High Court has held in Fatheraj that when the statute confers no express power under section 200A before 01.06.2015 on the authority either to compute and collect any fee under section 234E, the demand for the period before 01.06.2015 could not be sustained. Fatheraj in fact observes: "14. We may now deal with the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing the statements. Under no circumstances a machinery provision can override or overrule a charging provision. Section 200A does not create any charge in any manner. It only provides a mechanism for processing q statement for tax deduction and the method in which the same, would be done. When Section 234E has already created a charge for levying fee that would thereafter not have been necessary to have another provision creating the same charge. Viewing Section 200A as creating a new charge would bring about, dichotomy. In plain terms, the provision is a machinery provision and at best provides for a mechanism for processing and computing besides other, fee payable under section 234E for late filing of the statements" 11. There is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r), after reproducing paras 20 to 23 of the decision in Fatheraj Singhvi (supra), and concluding it's findings, at para 6.1 of the Judgment, it expresses it's agreement therewith at para 6.2 and held as under: - "23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation given by the respondent-Department against all the appellants under section 200A are so far as they are for the period prior to 1.6.2015 can be said as without any authority under law. Hence, the same can be said as illegal and invalid." At Paras 21 & 22 of the decision in Fatheraj Singhvi (supra) Hon'ble High Court (Kar) specifically held that the amendment vide Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015 would not have a retroactive effect ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he writ petitioner, and pass orders in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above." 5. It thus stands clarified by the binding decision of jurisdictional High Court that no late filing fee could be levied for processing u/s. 200A(1) for any period prior to 01.6.2015. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we find in the instant appeals that the 'late filing fee' u/s 234E of the Act has been levied for Quarter-4 ending for FY. 2012-13 Rs.6,200/- (ITA. No.887/Coch/2022) and late filing 'fee' u/s 234E of the Act for Quarter-2 for FY. 2012-13 at Rs.9,153/- (ITA. No.888/Coch/2022) has been levied. We note that only after 1st June, 2015 while processing of a TDS/TCS stateme....