Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

Om Prakash Dhoot vs. UOI (Rajashthan High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 18, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (Om_Prakash_234E_TDS.pdf)


S. 234E: High Court issues notice on challenge to notices for levy of fee for failure to file TDS statement. Recovery of fee is subject to outcome of Petition

S. 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 provides for levy of a fee of Rs. 200/- for each day’s delay in filing the statement of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) or Tax Collected at Source (TCS). A Writ Petition to challenge the validity of s. 234E has been filed in the Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. Vide an order dated 15.04.2014 the High Court has directed that notice should be issued to the CBDT and the UOI as to why the Petition should not be accepted. It has also been held that in the meanwhile, if any recovery is made from the Petitioner, that shall be subject to the final decision of the Writ Petition.

See also Narath Mapila LP School vs. UOI (Ker) and Adithya Bizorp Solutions India vs. UOI (Kar) where similar interim orders of stay have been passed. The CBDT has vide Circular No. 07/2014 dated 04.03.2014 extended the due date of filing of the TDS/TCS statement for Government deductors
3 comments on “Om Prakash Dhoot vs. UOI (Rajashthan High Court)
  1. HARSHADRAI says:

    GOVT. should earn GOOD MONEY. When deductor deposited TDS then there is no LOSS to revenue. Deductor is unpaid servant of Govt. Govt. should & should not take work from anyone without paying remuneration but in case deductor ,they are doing job without remuneration since long.SAMRATH KO NA DOSH GOSAI. CBDT should introduce TDS CHALLAN-CUM-FORM NO 16A FOR 194 A etc. That CBDT has already made arrangement for 194-IA deductor, Why not for others ? If CBDT introduce above challan then many many problem will be solved. 1.No separate issue of Form No 16A by the TDS deductor by downloading the Form No 16A from website, as allthe details are available in this challan. 2. That all the information required for 26Q are already appeard in this challan hence there is no requirement of Filling Form No 26Q & preperation of Form No 27A. 3. TDS deductor will save charges of uplod fees, fees of authorised representative etc. 4. No difficulties in respect of getting credit of TDS. 5 That due to software or other mistake TDS details are not appeared in 26AS & therefoe TDS Officers issued thousands of Notices in respect of TDS payment. This challan solve all the problem. 6. Huge workload of ITO TDS,deductor & deductee will be reduce by above challan because there will be no mis-matching. 7. Green Initiative – less consumption of paper. 9425517209

    • Ragavan says:

      Mr. Harshadrai

      good to see a input but will it ever be poss for a deductor to fill so many separate challans for n no. of deductees. imagine deductees being 1000s of contractors pm whereas now being deposited in single challan per section. and wat will be the quantum for a yr. No its not poss. so Returns filing must be mandatory.

      But From Excise & ST dept also charge late filing fee/penalty but none object it though. virtually its penalising for non compliance same as 234E. Why are ppl silent ? May be not getting penalty notices so actively!!!!!!

      Worse is IT Act is also not equal in all cases, consider case of Sec 234A, fee/penalty in form of interest is paid only on non tax remittance portion for default period of non filing of IT Return. Same is not applicable when tax is paid but return filed late. y diff approach when it comes to TDS returns ….. Bad !!!!

      Anyway But to make compliances stricter some measures are must. Be it fee/penalty else deductors particularly govt deductors just deposit challans and dont file return at all. Now notices and late fees demand notices have atleast changed things a bit. Some ways this 234E benefit and many a ways it hurt.

      • ASHOK says:

        Hi,

        I dont agree with this levy. It is a day light robbery and extortion. In the name of compliance we get only seven days after payment on 7th. The version of fvu files keep changing at will and the uploading system also keeps changing. When can fees be charged when the govt is giving us some service. what service is being provided. How is the rate of two hundred per day fixed is any analysis done. How is this fixed, is the tax paying assessee constantly to be exploited at will. What govt can collect is tax interest and penalty. Tomorrow they will collect fees because they want to give mercedec benz car to commissioner.

        Let us all protest. Let supreme court take up hearing instead of high courts giving different judgments and delaying the whole process of striking it down.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*