D N ASSOCIATES, vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/8624/2023HC KeralaKLHC01019874202313 March 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala held that the intimations Exts. P1 and P2 demanding the late filing levy under Section 234E for the period 2012-13 cannot be legally sustained. The Court's reasoning was based on the submissions of both sides, acknowledging that the issue was covered by the High Court's earlier judgment in M/s. Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of India. Consequently, the Court quashed Exts. P1 and P2 to the extent they demanded the late filing levy under Section 234E for the period 2012-13. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, D N Associates, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a stay on further proceedings initiated by intimations (Exts. P1 and P2) to the extent they demanded a late filing levy under Section 234E. The assessment period in question is 2012-13. The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of the same High Court in M/s. Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of India. The Income Tax Department's Standing Counsel conceded that the matter was covered in favour of the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the demand for late filing levy under Section 234E for the period 2012-13, as per intimations Exts. P1 and P2, is legally sustainable? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the issue is squarely covered in their favour by the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in M/s. Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of India (W.P.(C). No.37775/2018), and a similar case was disposed of based on this precedent (Ext.P4 judgment). Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department submitted that the matter is covered in favour of the petitioner.

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 VIJU ABRAHAM MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 8624 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: D N ASSOCIATES AGED 48 YEARS N.J.COMPLEX 5TH FLOOR, COLLEGE ROAD PALAKKKAD- 678001 (REPRESENTED BY SMT. NISHA RAJKUMAR, MANAGING PARTNER), PIN - 678001 BY ADVS. P.J.ANILKUMAR (A-1768) K.N.SREEKUMARAN N.SANTHOSHKUMAR RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) AAYKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD- 678014, PIN - 678014 2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CPC, AAYKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GAZIABAD, UTTARPRADESH-201010., PIN - 201010 3 CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110002. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN - 110002 4 THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-110001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 110001 BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.No.8624 Of 2023 - 2 - VIJU ABRAHAM, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.8624 of 2023 ----------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th March, 2023

JUDGMENT Petitioner approaches this Court to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of Exts.P1 and P2 intimations to the extent it demands the late filing levy under Section234E.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgment of this Court in M/s.Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of India (W.P. (C). No.37775/2018). In a similar case also, the said issue was considered and disposed of as per Ext.P4 judgment.

3.

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department also submitted that the matter is covered in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and based on submissions on both sides, Exts.P1 and P2 for the period 2012-13 cannot be WPC.No.8624 Of 2023 legally sustained. Therefore, I quash Exts.P1 and P2 intimations to the extent it demands the late filing levy under Section 234E for the period 2012-13. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE ww

WPC.No.8624 Of 2023 - 4 -

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8624/2023 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 23.09.2016 OF LEVY U/S 234E, AGAINST 26Q OF Q2 FOR F.Y:2012-13 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 23.09.2016 OF LEVY U/S 234E, AGAINST 26Q OF Q3 FOR F.Y:2012-13 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF DEMAND WITH REFERENCE NUMBER 27022023/00413/CD RECEIVED ON 06.03.2023 OF FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN JIJI VARGHESE VS INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), W.P.(C) 1259/2022 DATED 24.03.2022.

More judgments on Section 234E

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →