Rashmikant Kundalia vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 30, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (rashmikant_234E_TDS.pdf)


S. 234E: High Court grants ad-interim stay against operation of notices levying fee for failure to file TDS statement

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 Bombay High Court. The Petition claims that assessees who are deducting tax at source are discharging an administrative function of the department and that they are a “honorary agent” of the department. It is stated that this obligation is onerous in nature and that there are already numerous penalties prescribed for a default. It is stated that the fee now levied by s. 234E is “exponentially harsh and burdensome” and also “deceitful, atrocious and obnoxious“. It is also claimed that Parliament does not have the jurisdiction or competence to impose such a levy on tax-payers.

The Bombay High Court has, vide order dated 28.04.2014, granted ad-interim stay in terms of prayer clause (d) i.e. stayed the operation of the impugned notices levying the fee.

See also Narath Mapila LP School vs. UOI (Ker), Adithya Bizorp Solutions India vs. UOI (Kar) & Om Prakash Dhoot vs. UOI (Raj) 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
9 comments on “Rashmikant Kundalia vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)
  1. R S SHAH says:

    Some Professionals and lawyers or the association of Taxpayers and practitioners need to take this issue of any kind of burden on assesses who are discharging the duty of the Government and instead of rewarding in some manner, say by incentive in tax payment ( if TDS is deducted and paid), the duty is cast on them as though they are culprits and serial offenders of the tax department. THIS CONCEPT IS UNFAIR AND UNJUST.
    PL SEND THE WHOLE JUDGEMENT COPY AND FOLLOW UP ACTIONS, ISSUES AND JUDGEMENTS

    • Triloki Nath says:

      One must comply withthe provisions of Income Tax as his duty reasonably so that this type situation may not arise.

  2. Feyha Tejani says:

    Does this stay order apply on all notices served to all assessees, or only to the petitioner’s notices?

  3. Rashmi Dave says:

    Can I have the complete copy of Judgement please ?

  4. D Jagadeeswara Reddy says:

    Does this stay order apply on all notices served to all assessees, or only to the petitioner’s notices?

  5. ramanakumar says:

    Is this applicable in Andhra Pradesh.
    and my next doubt is “Is it just a stay or waiver of penalty completely”

  6. Santanu Hazra says:

    Not comment one question from mine. that is “ANY FURTHER ORDER AGAINST WRIT PETITION MATTER REGARDING u/S 234E?” & I think any subjudice matter applicable through out the Country.

  7. AMIT KUMAR VERMA says:

    Hello sir,

    1. In the case of Govt Deductor , All tax are deduct by DDO paying salary and amount of tax alredy laying with Govt tressey .why not Income tax Dept open one window that tax deducted on salary will auto credit to Income tax account through Tressry office ? However so many benefit of money and time to Dept.

    2. After heavy demand by I tax Dept. send notice to stop Bill of payment .Why not make a system if DDO are not filed his e TDS on time ,Notice will iniated to tresry to stop payment .It helps to less demand to beneit of money ,time to work another creative works.

    It is personnal openion.not for legual statement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*