SEENA RAMACHANDRAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/12711/2023HC KeralaKLHC01027999202310 April 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not permissible. The Court found that the issue was no longer res integra, as it had been conclusively decided by this Court in W.P.(C.) No. 37715/2018, which was subsequently confirmed by a Division Bench in W.A. No. 722/2019. A learned Single Judge had also followed these judgments in a similar case. Therefore, the Court saw no reason to deviate from the established precedent. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned default summaries, intimations, and demand notice were quashed to the extent they demanded late fee under Section 234E.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Seena Ramachandran, proprietrix of PVC Product Centre, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenged default summaries, intimations, and a demand notice (Exts. P1 to P7). Specifically, the petitioner sought to quash these documents to the extent they demanded a late filing levy under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC-TDS), and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The assessment years are not explicitly stated in the provided text.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is permissible in light of previous High Court judgments? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the demand for late filing levy under Section 234E is unsustainable. The petitioner relied on previous judgments of the High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C.) No. 37715/2018 and a Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 722/2019, which had already held such levies to be impermissible. A subsequent Single Judge judgment in W.P.(C.) No. 1078/2022 also followed these precedents. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue on this issue. However, the fact that the respondents were represented by their respective Standing Counsel suggests they were aware of the proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 12711 OF 2023 PETITIONER: SEENA RAMACHANDRAN AGED 49 YEARS PROPRIETRIX OF PVC PRODUCT CENTRE, KRIPA COMPLEX THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680101 BY ADVS. AMMU CHARLES K.MANOJ CHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN RANGAR,THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS AAYKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-3 VAISHALI GHAZIYABAD, UP, PIN - 201010 3 CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI,PIN - 110002 , REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 12711 OF 2023 2 T.R. RAVI, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.12711 of 2023 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of April, 2023

JUDGMENT Admit. The respective Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash Exts.P1 to P3 default summaries and their corresponding intimations and Exts.P4 to P6 intimations and Ext.P7 demand notice to the extent they demand late filing levy under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issue is no longer res integra. This Court has already held that such a levy is not possible in the judgment in W.P.(C.) No.37715/2018 which was confirmed by the judgment of a Division Bench in W.A. No.722/2019. A learned Single Judge has thereafter followed the above judgments in a case of a similarly situated person in Ext.P7 judgment in W.P.(C.) No.1078/2022. I do not find any reason to take a different view. The writ petition is hence allowed and Exts.P1 to P3 default summaries and their corresponding intimations and Exts.P4 to P6 intimations and WP(C) NO. 12711 OF 2023 3 Ext.P7 demand notice are quashed to the extent they demand late fee under Section 234(E). T.R.RAVI JUDGE LEK

WP(C) NO. 12711 OF 2023 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12711/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF DEFAULT SUMMARY FOR 2ND QUARTER OF FY 2012-13 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF DEFAULT SUMMARY FOR 3RD QUARTER OF FY 2012-13 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF DEFAULT SUMMARY FOR 4TH QUARTER OF FY 2012-13 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF IT ACT FOR 1ST QUARTER OF FY 2013-14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF IT ACT FOR 2ND QUARTER OF FY 2013-14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF IT ACT FOR 3RD QUARTER OF FY 2013-14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 05.07.2016 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DIVISION BENCH JUDGMENT IN M/S OLARI LITTLE FLOWER KURIES PVT LTD V. UNION OF INDIA [(2021) TAXCORP (DT) 85976 (HC-KERALA) DATED 22.10.2021

More judgments on Section 234E

All 4,792 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234E →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →