my client has recevied intimation u/s 200A for payment of late filling fee u/s 234E i can not evaluate the influence of the Narath Mapila LP School vs. UOI (Kerala High Court) .
on my client some people say to wait for few months then pay whereas some advice to pay .
please advice me what to do ??
Dear Rashi, Narath Manpila case in Kerala High Court is in for a long haul. Recently the high court extended the interim stay for another two months.
At this stage, it would be inappropriate to take any position as a negative judgment from the court can hurt your clients later on. Therefore, request your clients to discharge the existing 234E liability. you can also consider filing request for stay on demand giving reference to pending judicial proceedings.
for the copy of latest stay in the Kerala High Court case, please refer /forum/kerala-high-court-extends-interim-stay-for-another-2-months-288731.asp
also keep your updated by following sivarajassociates.blogspot.com
This is the blog of the law firm which is representing the petitioner in this case.
Gaurav, not at all.. thats not the case. However, the correct reading of the order suggest that the stay is only for proceedings against the specific petitioner by the specific Income tax officer. Atleast thats what the prayer made to the judge suggest.
you client has not filed returns for 3 years? well then let it be so. the quantum doesn't change legal positions. However, you may consider writ petition challenging the law itself as it is being done in Narath Mapila case. However, no one can predict the outcome.
Dear Abhinav,
when did the judgment came? It is still pending friend...
Mumbai High Court rules - 234E fees constitutionally Valid
Rashmikant Kundalia vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)
S. 234E: The late filing of TDS returns by the deductor causes inconvenience to everyone and s. 234E levies a fee to regularize the said late filing. The fee is not in the guise of a tax nor is it onerous. The levy is constitutionally valid
The late submission of TDS statements means the Department is burdened with extra work which is otherwise not required if the TDS statements were furnished within the prescribed time. This fee is for the payment of the additional burden forced upon the Department. A person deducting the tax (the deductor), is allowed to file his TDS statement beyond the prescribed time provided he pays the fee as prescribed under section 234E of the Act. In other words, the late filing of the TDS return/statements is regularised upon payment of the fee as set out in section 234E. This is nothing but a privilege and a special service to the deductor allowing him to file the TDS return/statements beyond the time prescribed by the Act and/or the Rules. We therefore cannot agree with the argument of the Petitioners that the fee that is sought to be collected under section 234E of the Act is really nothing but a collection in the guise of a tax
CAclubindia
