IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015 BEFORE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 26589/2014 C/W W.P.NOS.3476-3479/2014 & 5661-5665/2014, 3725/2014 & 9922-9923/2014, 6918-6938/2014, 11889-11890/2014, 12097-12121/2014, 13065-13074/2014, 14294- 14295/2014 & 30565-30567/2014, 14296-14297/2014 & 29363-29365/2014, 14669/2014 & 15513-15514/2014, 16939-16950/2014, 18788-18791/2014 & 18792/2014, 19398-19399/2014, 19407-19421/2014, 19762- 19775/2014, 23541-23549/2014, 25841-25848/2014, 26586-26587/2014, 26588/2014, 10243/2014 & 11891- 11894/2014, 15476/2014 & 16111-16113/2014, 24023/2014, 46360/2014, 41614-41617/2014, 41618/2014, 38130-38134/2014, 53286-53289/2014 & 53290-53291/2014, 38127-38129/2014 AND 37689/2014 & 5641-5658/2015 (T-IT) W.P.NO.26589/2014: BETWEEN: M/S. LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT.LTD 15, SRIKANTAN LAYOUT, HIGH GROUNDS, 2 BENGALURU- 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI G R SURESH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS SON OF SRI RANGARAJAN ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. S PARTHASARATHI, SRI. P. DINESH & SRI. JINITA CHATTERJEE ADVOCATES) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, AAYKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-3, VAISHALI GHAZIABAD, UP- 201 010. 2. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE NEW DELHI -110 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND TO HOLD PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E OF ACT AS ULTRA VIRES OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. W.P.NOs.3476-3479/2014 & 5661-5665/2014: BETWEEN: 1. DR. SRIPADA VENKTA JOGA RAO 3 AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 229-234, SRIPADA UNIVERSITY POST ULLAL UPANAGAR BANGALORE -560 056. 2. M/S. OLYMPIC TROPHIES & SPORTS PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI H.V. UMESH BABU HAVING ITS BUSINESS AT NO.85/A, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE -560027. 3. KINDERPLAY EQUIPMENTS PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI H.V. UMESH BABU HAVING ITS BUSINESS AT 6(4), TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD DHARMARAM COLLEGE POST, BANGALORE -560 029. 4. M/S. THOGARIHUNKAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI NANDAN GOWDA HAVING ITS OFFICE NO.95 (OLD NO.45), 1ST FLOOR 3RD MAIN, VYALIKAVAL BANGALORE -560003. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAMA MURTHY R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY 4 MINISTRY OF FINANCE SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI- 110001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS AAYKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, U.P- 201010. 3. COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX (TDS) HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD GANGANAGAR BANGALORE -560032. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE & STRIKE DOWN PROVISIONS OF SEC.234E OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. W.P.NOs.3725/2014 & 9922-9923/2014: BETWEEN: M/S. K K BROTHERS NO.25/1, CHANDRA SOLITAIR, PAPANNA LANE, J.M.ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU-560002 (REPRESENTED BY TIS PRORIETOR SRI.GOUTHAMCHAND K MEHTA 5 AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O SRI.KANTILAL H MEHTA). ... PETITIONER (BY SRI CHYTHANYA K K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY OF MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ROOM NO.128-A, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, AAYKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, U.P.-201010. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) ROOM NO.59, H.M.T. BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560032. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE NEWLY INSERTED SEC.234E OF IT ACT, BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 AS UNCONSTITUTIONALBEING ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY & UNREASONABLE. RELEVANT EXTRACT OF SECTION 234E IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-A. 6 W.P.NOs.6918-6938/2014: BETWEEN: 1. ADITHYA BIZORP SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT., LTD., NO.31/1, 2ND FLOOR, 8TH CROSS, 20TH MAIN, 1-N BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE -560010 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI NAGARAJU K.M. S/O MUDDAVEERAPPA AGED: 28 YEARS 2. DIVINE AUTO CNC B-82, 2ND CROSS, 1ST STAGE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE -560058 BY ITS PARTNER SRI TOMY PHILIP S/O PHILIP THOMAS AGED: 44 YEARS. 3. MICRO TECH CNC 338, 9TH CROSS, 4TH PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE -560058 BY ITS PARTNER SRI YOGESHWARA S/O SRIDHAR S HEBBAR AGED: 34 YEARS 4. VRL AUTOMATION ENGINEERING AND PROJECT PVT. LTD. A-170, 4TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE -560058 BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 7 SRI T. VENKATARAMANA S/O SRI T.K. VISWESWARA RAO, AGED: 45 YEARS. 5. VIPRA MACHINE TOOLS 34, SY.NO.116, 3RD B CROSS, HEGGANAHALLI VISWANEEDAMPOST, BANGALORE -560091 BY ITS PARTNER SRI SRINIVASAN N.S. S/O SUBRAMANYAM K.N. AGED: 45 YEARS. 6. MOOKAMBIKA CNC 31, 1ST AND 2ND FLOOR CHENNAPPA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ANDRAHALLLI MAIN ROAD HEGGANAHALLI POST, BANGALORE- 560091 BY ITS PARTNER SRI N.S. THIRUVENGADAM S/O SUBRAMANYAM K.N. AGED: 44 YEARS. 7. STAINLESS VESSELS FABRICATORS 117/D, 9TH CROSS GANAPATHINAGAR PEENYA 3RD PHASE, BANGALORE 560058 BY ITS PARTNER SRI JITHENDRA BABU K S/O SRI KANNAPPA SHETTY AGED: 41 YEARS. 8. BHAVANA FLUID POWER 56(A), 12TH CROSS, 4TH PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, 8 BANGALORE -560058 BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI SHIVA KUMAR K.V. S/O SRI VEERANNA K.R. AGED: 40 YEARS. 9. MANJUNATH PRECISION TOOLS 36/1, 2ND MAIN, 3RD B CROSS VISWANEEDAM POST, BANGALORE -560091. BY ITS PARTNER SRI MANOHARAN S/O SRI RAMALU REDDYAR, AGED: 47 YEARS. 10. INNOVA CNC NO.15, 7TH MAIN, RAJGOPAL NAGAR PEENYA, BANGALORE -560058 BY ITS PARTNER SRI SHANKARAGOUDA V. PATIL S/O VIRUPADHAGOUDA G. PATIL AGED : 39 YEARS. 11. ADARSHA MACHINE TOOLS 40B/4A, 2ND STAGE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE- 560058 BY ITS PARTNER SRI REJI ANTONY, S/O V.J. ANTONY AGED: 46 YEARS. 12. PHOENIX PRECISION PARTS SB-51, 4TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALURU -560058 BY ITS PROPRIETOR 9 SRI G.S. GIRISH S/O LATE G.N. SIDDANATH, AGED: 46 YEARS. 13. SREE VENKATESHWARA SERVICE STATION 100 FEET RING ROAD, PEENYA BANGALORE- 560058 BY ITS PROPRIETOR K. NAGABHUSHAN S/O B.T. KRISHNAPPA, AGED: 47 YEARS. 14. EXCEL FORGE TECH NO.60 361, 4TH PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE -560058 BY ITS PARTNER SRI AKRAM KHAN S/O AMEERULLAH KHAN, AGED: 34 YEARS. 15. SUKHENA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. NO.31/1, 3RD FLOOR, BVR PLAZA, 8TH CROSS, 20TH MAIN, 1-N BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE- 560010 BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI RAHUL KULKARNI S/O NARAYAN RAO, AGED: 35 YEARS. 16. B.M. DEVELOPERS SY.NO.101, KATHA NO.470/2 & 471 K.R. PURAM HOBLI, KUNDALAHALLI VILLAGE BANGALORE- 560037 BY ITS PARTNER 10 SRI P. GAJENDRA S/O P. MUNISWAMY NAIDU, AGED: 40 YEARS. 17. RADIANT SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS NO.3, LEVEL I, 135/3, VIJAYA ARCADE LALBAGH ROAD, BANGALORE- 560027 BY ITS PROPRIETOR ASHOK CHANDRAN NAIR S/O SRI PARAMESWARAN NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 61 YEARS. 18. AL AMEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST NO.3, MILLER TANK BUND ROAD CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE -560052 BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI MOHAMMED ALI KHAN S/O LATE ABDUL GAFFAR KHAN, AGED: 37 YEARS. 19. ROOPASHRI SHANKAR CHINDALUR W/O C G SHIVASHANKAR, AGED: 34 YEARS, 105, SATHYASHREE, SERPENTINE ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE -560020. 20. P. CHAKRAVARTHY S/O PERUMAL, AGED: 43 YEARS NO.38, SEETHAPPA LAYOUT GAYATHRI TEMPLE MAIN ROAD CHAMUNDINAGAR MAIN ROAD, R.T. NAGAR POST BANGALORE -560032. 11 21. C.R. SHREEKUMAR S/O M.K. RAGHAVAN NAIR AGED: 52 YEARS 28/2, KEMPAIAH ESTATE, NEAR BMTC DEPOT 4TH PHASE PIA, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.S R SHIVA PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 4TH FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI -110001. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE- II CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE- 560001. 4. TDS RECONCILIATION ANALYSIS AND CORRECTION ENABLING SYSTEM TDS CPC, AAYKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, U.P.- 201010 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) 12 THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT FINANCE ACT NO.2 OF 2012 BY WAY OF INSERTION OF SECTION 234E TO INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IS UNREASONABLE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEING OPPOSED TO ARTICLE 265 AND 277 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, AND HOLD SAID IMPUGNED PROVISION OF SECTION 234E OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AS VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR REASONS SET OUT IN THIS PETITION AND FOR WHICH PETITIONER SHALL EVER BE GRATEFUL. W.P.NOs.11889-11890/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.PRODIGY TECHNOVATIONS PVT LTD., NO.75, EL SHADDI, 1ST CROSS, BALAJI LAYOUT, BANASAWADI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 560033 (REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. GODFREE COELHO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O SRI FRANCIS COELHO) 2. K.M. SRINIVASAN S/O K.M MAHADEVAN, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, NO.2/1-4, POORNA CHANDRA, CANNAUGHT ROAD, OPP. QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE -560052. ... PETITIONERS (BY SMT CHYTHANYA K K, ADVOCATE) 13 AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY SECRETARY OF MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ROOM NO.128-A, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, AAYKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, U.P -201010. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) ROOM NO.59, H.M.T. BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU- 560032. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE NEWLY INSERTED SEC.234E OF IT ACT BY FINANCE ACT 2012 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEING ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY & UNREASONABLE. RELEVANT EXTRACT OF SEC.234E IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-A. 14 W.P.NOs.12097-12121/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.HOTEL FISHLAND REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SRI VASUDEV R.DESAI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, NO.1/3, I FLOOR, SUJATHA COMPLEX, I CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 009. 2. M/s. STATUS BAR & RESTAURANT REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI VASUDEV R DESAI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, NO.1/3, I FLOOR, SUJATHA COMPLEX, I CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 009. 3. SMT.GAYATHRI G DESAI NO.94/3, INFANTRY ROAD, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 001. 4. M/s. L.N.FASHIONS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI.T.V.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO.05, SIDDESHWARA COMPLEX, SHIRKE MAIN ROAD, KENGERI, BANGALORE-560 027. 5. M/s.SHIRT PALACE REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SRI B.R.RAJASHEKAR, 15 AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NO.995/B, KATTRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD, ASHOKNAGAR, BANGALORE-560 050. 6. M/s. BLACK BIRD MARKETING REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SRI.T.V.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NO.2775, 13TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE, "E" BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010. 7. M/s. BLACK BIRD RETAIL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI B.R.RAJASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NO.63/1, FIRST FLOOR, H.SIDDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027. 8. TUF N TRENDY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, ALITA ROOPA ARANHA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, NO.472/1, GROUND FLOOR, OLD MADRAS ROAD, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560 036. 9. M/s. ADVANI AND ASSOCIATES REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, R.S.ADVANI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, NO.30/1, 1ST FLOOR, LEEMANS COMPLEX, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052. 16 10. M/s. TECHNOART CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.N.KARTHIK, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, NO.19 & 19/1, 3RD FLOOR, SOUTH END ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004. 11. MYSORE CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ASHWIN SHREENIVAS.D, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NO.10/02, KASTURBA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAMA MURTHY R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, AAVKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, U.P.201010. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, 17 GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE & STRIKE DOWN PROVISIONS OF SEC. 234E OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL & VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. W.P.NOs.13065-13074/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.NEW MEDIA COMPANY NO.12/1, KAMAL VAIBHAV, SOWRASTRAPET MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 005 (REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI SHREEKANTHA PARASHAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O SRI J P PARASHAR) 2. M/s.GANESH KRUPA INDUSTRIAL PARK NO.35, KESHARI BUILDING, MAMULPET BANGALORE-560 053 (REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI G HEMRAJ AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O SRI GANESHMAL) 3. M/s.MANGLAM ENTERPRISES NO.62/3, BVK IYENGAR ROAD, OPP.MADHU LODGE BANGALORE-560 053 (REPRESENTED BY ITS 18 PROPRIETOR SRI PIYUSH S SHAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O SRI SHANTILAL SHAH) 4. M/s.SHREE JAGADAMBA SILK CENTRE NO.529/8 & 9, RAMESH MARKET AVENUE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002 (REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI GHEWARCHAND GULABCHAND HUF REPRESENTED BY KARTA SRI ASHOK KUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O SRI GHEWARCHAND) 5. M/s.YASH FABRICS NO.192, T C GOWRAMMA HOSPITAL BUILDING, CHICKPET, BANGALORE-560 053 (REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT HEMALATHA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, D/O SRI KEWALCHAND JAIN) 6. M/s.KANTI KEWAL & BROTHERS NO.27-28-29, KEMPANNA LANE, C T STREET CROSS, BANGALORE-560 002 (REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT SOHANRAJ H MEHTA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, D/O SRI HASTIMAL) 7. M/s.BHARAT MEDICAL & 19 GENERAL AGENCIES NO.111/71, 1ST FLOOR, 6TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 041 (REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI BABULAL CHOUHAN AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O SRI SHESHMAL) 8. M/s.BHARAT RADIO & ELECTRIC CO. NO.1 & 2 SB MARKET, CHICKPET BANGALORE-560 053 (REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI NIRMAL KUMAR DOSHI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O SRI PARASMAL DOSHI) 9. M/s.VINEET ENTERPRISES NO.27,1ST FLOOR, JM ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002 (REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI ASHOK TEKWANI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O SRI CHATTARAM) 10. M/s.RELIANCE DEVELOPERS (INDIA )PVT. LTD., NO.1613, 1ST STAGE, 2ND PHASE, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 040 (REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI K S UMESH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O SRI K SHIVAPPA) ... PETITIONERS (BY SMT CHYTHANYA K K, ADVOCATE) 20 AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY SECRETARY OF MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ROOM NO.128-A, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, AAYKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, U.P-201 010. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) ROOM NO. 59, H.M.T BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SR K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE NEWLY INSERTED SECTION 234E OF IT ACT, BY FINANCE ACT 2012 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEING ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY & UNREASONABLE, REVEVANT EXTRACT OF SEC.234E IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-A. 21 W.P.NOs.14294-14295/2014 & 30565-30567/2014 BETWEEN: 1. M/s.CATHODIC CONTROL CO., LTD., PLOT NO. 87, III PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE-560058 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI V BABU SATHIAN 2. SRI V BABU SATHIAN S/O S V RAGHAVAN AGED 64 YEARS R/AT PLOT NO. 87 III PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE-560058 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.M.V. SESHACHALA SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 4TH FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 22 3. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I C.R.BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE-560001. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, C.R.BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DECLARATION THAT SEC. 234E OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 INTRODUCED BY FINANCE ACT NO.2/2012 FOR VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS WRIT PETITION AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID. W.P.NOs.14296-14297/2014 & 29363-29365/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.PROCESS PUMPS (I) PVT., LTD., PLOT NO. 86, III PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE-560058 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI V BABU SATHIAN 2. SRI V BABU SATHIAN S/O S V RAGHAVAN AGED 64 YEARS 23 R/AT PLOT NO. 86 III PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE-560058 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.M.V. SESHACHALA SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 4TH FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI-110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 3. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I C.R.BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE-560001. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, C.R.BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE-560001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) 24 THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DECLARATION THAT SEC.234E OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, INTRODUCED BY FINANCE ACT NO.2/2012 FOR VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS WRIT PETITION AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL & VOID. W.P.NOs.14669/2014 & 15513-15514/2014: BETWEEN: ECOLE SOLUTIONS PVT., LTD., LEVEL 3, BRIGADE BUSINESS SUITES ASHOKA PILLAR JAYNAGAR 2ND BLOCK BANGALORE -560011, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. VENKATESH L.S. S/O SHRINIVASAN IYENGAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT LAKSHMY IYENGAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI 110001. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 4TH FLOOR, 25 JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI -110001. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE II CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE -560001. 4. TDS RECONCILIATION ANALYSIS AND CORRECTION ENABLING SYSTEM TDS CPC, AAYKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-3, VAISHAII GHAZIABAD, UP-201010. REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH NOTICES DATED 26.10.2013 AND 17.11.2013 AND ISSUED UNDER PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 PROPOSING TO LEVY FEE FOR DELAY IN FURNISHING STATEMENT U/S 200[3] OF PROVISO TO SUB SECTION [3] OF SECTION 206C OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A3. W.P.NOs.16939-16950/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NITHYANANDA COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, MOODBIDRI-574 227, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 26 MRS.S.USHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O SRI.A.P.NATH) 2. SRI SAMPATHRATHNA RAO S S/O.SUNDAR RAO S, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, CONSULTING ENGINEER, UJIRE, BELTHANGADY TQ. 574240. 3. M/s.ST.IGNATIOUS HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL KADALAKERE, MITHABAIL POST, MOODBIDRI-574226, (REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD MASTER SRI.JAYARAM RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O. SRI.ANNAPPAYYA RAO) 4. M/s.KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF CO-OPERATIVE MANAGEMENT NEAR LADI, MOODBIDRI-574 227, (REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL M.M.SHYAMALA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, D/O SRI.M.P.MANJUNATH) 5. M/s.BELVAI CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL BANK LTD BELVI, MANGALORE TQ. 574213, (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.K.RAMCHANDRA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O SRI.K.SHAMBU BHAT) 27 6. M/s.GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL PRANTHYA, MOODBIDRI-574197 (REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD MISTRESS SMT.RAJASHREE B AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, D/O SRI.JAGATHPALA HEGDE M ) 7. M/s.SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., TWINS TOWERS, PADUBIDRI NITTE ROAD, KEDINJE POST, KARKALA TQ. 574110 (REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER MRS.ASHA KUMARI SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, D/O SRI.SATHISH SHETTY) 8. M/s.PIONEER WELD TECHNOLOGIES NO.269/2, PADUMARNADU VILLAGE, BELVAI-574213, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. VISHWAMITHRA PAI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O SRI.KALINGA PAI). 9. M/s.BHUVANA JYOTHI EDUCATION TRUST ABHINANADAN, SHIRHADY, MANGALORE TQ-574236, (REPRESENTD BY ITS TRUSTEE SRI.R.PRASHANTH D SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O SRI.RICHARD D SOUZA) 28 10. M/s.BENEFIT FILMCITY INDIA LTD., PANDITH S HEALTH RESPORT & SPA, ALANGAR, MOODBIDRI-574227, (REPRESENTD BY ITS DIRECTOR RUBY AGARWAL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, D/O SRI.HARISH AGARWAL) 11. M/s.ADARSHA HIGH SCHOOL TACCODE, MOODBIDRI-574197, (REPRESENTD BY ITS HEAD MISTRESS MRS.ZITA DIAS AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS D/O SRI.LIGORY DIAS) 12. M/s.SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NAVRATANA COMPLEX, BELVAI, DAKSHIN KANNADA-574213, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER SIR.SATHISH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O SRI.VITTAL SHETTY) ... PETITIONERS (BY SMT CHYTHANYA K K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY OF MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ROOM NO.128-A, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 29 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, AAYKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, U.P.-201010. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) ROOM NO.59, H.M.T.BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560032. 4. COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) ROOM NO.900A, 9TH FLOOR, K.G.MITTAL AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL BUILDING, CHARNI ROAD, MUMBAI-400002. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE NEWLY INSERTED SECTION 234E OF IT ACT, BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEING ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY AND UNREASONABLE. RELEVANT EXTRACT OF SECTION 234E IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-A. W.P.NOs.18788-18791/2014 & 18792/2014: BETWEEN: M/s.NEW MEDIA COMPANY NO.12/1, KAMAL VAIBHAV, SOWRASTRAPET MAIN ROAD, 30 BANGALORE-560 005 (REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI SHREEKANTH PARASHAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O SRI J P PARASHAR). ... PETITIONER (BY SMT CHYTHANYA K K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY OF MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ROOM NO.128-A, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, AAYKAR BHAVAN,SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, U.P-201010. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) ROOM NO.59, H.M.T BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE NEWLY INSERTED SECTION 234E OF IT ACT, BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 AS 31 UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEING ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY AND UNREASONABLE. RELEVANT EXTRACT OF SECTION 234E IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-A. W.P.NOs.19398-19399/2014: BETWEEN: SYNDICATE BANK TAX CELL, HEAD OFFICE, MANIPAL-576 104 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER MR R RAMALINGAM. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.P. KUMAR SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI T. SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, AAYKAR BHAVAN SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, U.P-201 010. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SYSTEMS CPC-TDS) CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, AAYKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, U.P-201 010. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) ROOM NO. 59, H.M.T.BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD, 32 GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032. 4. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ROOM NO.128-A, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. ..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT SECTION 234E OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 WITH EFFECT FROM 1.7.2012, IS ARBITRARY UNFAIR AND UNREASONABLE AND THUS ULTRA VIRES CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF ACT. W.P.NOs.19407-19421/2014: BETWEEN: 1. SRI PRATHIK PRABHAKAR S/O SRI M. PRABHAKAR SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS NO.58, GROUND FLOOR RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY NO. 45/37, GUBBANNA LAYOUT 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560010 33 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MR MOHAMMED NIAZ RASHID 3. M/s.T V VENKATASWAMY & CO. NO. 154/3, TRINITY CHURCH COMPOUND OLD MADRAS ROAD BANGALORE-560008 REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI M V SRINIVAS. 4. M/s.VIHANG HOSPITALITY NO. 827, VIJAYANAGAR MAIN ROAD VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040 REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI BALAKRISHNA SHETTY. 5. M/s.U D ROTIGHAR NO.17, GANDHI BAZAAR MAIN ROAD BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE-560004 REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI G JANARDHAN. 6. M/s.U D RESIDENCY PRIVATE LIMITED NO.19/2, 1ST MAIN SOUTH END ROAD, BASAVANGUDI BANGALORE-560004 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI G JANARDHAN. 7. M/s.U D CATERERS NO.304, 9TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE-560058 34 REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI G JANARDHAN 8. SRI S S NAGAPPA S/O SRI.SHIVATHANU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NO.3, SHARADA STREE SAMAJA BUILDING, 1ST CROSS CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560018. 9. M/s.SRINIDHI HOSPIMED SOLUTIONS PVT., LTD ., NO.110-B, "SHREE NIDHI" SOBHA MALACHITE JAKKUR PLANTATIONS YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR DR. ANIL KUMAR M HEGDE 10. M/s.MANGALA OFFSET PRINTERS PVT., LTD., 344/1, 377/1A, 6TH CROSS B G ROAD, MTM LAYOUT BILEKAHALLI, N S PALYA BANGALORE-560076 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI MOHAN SALIAN. 11. SRI LALITHKUMAR K SHAH S/O SRI KISHOREMAL K SHAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS PROP. -M/s.SHREE RAJGURU JEWELLERS, NO.3, G-2, HARIHARA MANSION 3RD CROSS, GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE-560053. 35 12. SRI GIRISH S POOJARY S/O SRI SOMAPPA PROP.- M/s.INDUSTRIAL CATERERS AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS NO.910, K N EXTENSION 6TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN YESHWANTHPUR BANGALORE-560022. 13. SRI DEEPAK KUMAR JAIN S/O LATE SRI DEVENDER KUMAR JAIN PROP. M/s.ADI ENGINEERING AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS NO.211, GARDEN VILAS RESIDENTIAL ASSN., NAGARBHAVI, BANGALORE-560072. 14. M/s.AGNI EARTH MOVERS PVT., LTD., NO. 585, 2ND BLOCK 2ND MAIN ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560010 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI G V S N MURTHY. 15. SRI M PRABHAKAR SHETTY S/O SRI B.MUDANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS NO.58, GROUND FLOOR RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST BANGALORE-560020. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ASHOK KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 36 OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, U.P-201010. 2. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A DTD.15.2.2014 WITH REFERENCE DTD.18.11.2013 VIDE ANNEX-A1 REFERENCE DTD.8.9.2013 VIDE ANNEX-A2 REFERENCE DTD.14.11.2013 VIDE ANNEX-A3 REFERENCE DTD.14.11.2013 VIDE ANNEX-A4, A5, A6, A7, REF. DTD.4.5.2013 VIDE ANNEX-A8, REF. DTD. 14.11.2013 VIDE ANNEX-A9, REF. DTD.13.11.2013 VIDE ANNEX-A10, REF.DTD.7.9.2013 VIDE ANNEX-A11, REF. DTD. 6.12.2013 VIDE ANNEX-A12, REF. DTD.10.11.2013 VIDE ANNEX-A13 AND A14, REF.NO.10.11.2013 VIDE ANNEX-A14, REF. DTD. 3.2.2014 VIDE ANNEX-A15 TO EXTENT THEY PURPORT TO LEVY AND COLLECT FEE U/S.234E AS INDICATED THEREIN ABOVE SAID ALL ANNEXURES PASSED BY R-1. W.P.NOs.19762-19775/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.TEE ENN ENTERPRISES REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER 37 SRI K.K.PANDURANGA, AGED 57 YEARS, NO.312, 10TH MAIN, 5TH CORSS, I BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 011. 2. K.K. PANURANGA AGED 57 YEARS, NO.31, KRISHNAVENI COMPLEX, COMMERCIAL STREET, BANGALORE-560 001. 3. K.P.SHARADA, AGED 52 YEARS, NO.38/3, II FLOOR, LAKSHMI COMPLEX, LALBAGH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027. 4. M/s.NUKAPUR HOSPITAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI V.H.NUKAPUR, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, SHARADA TALKIES ROAD, NEAR BUS STAND, KOLAR-563 101. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAMA MURTHY R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF 38 INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, AAYKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, U.P.201010. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONERS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE & STRIKE DOWN PROVISIONS OF SEC.234E OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL & VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. W.P.NOs.23541-23549/2014: BETWEEN: 1. SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O SRI ANANDARAYA K KAMATH, RESIDING AT D.NO.4-219-1, "SANIDHYA", KANJARKATTE, POST SANTHOOR, UDUPI-574 139. 2. SRI M.SRINAGESH HEGDE (MANAGING PARTNER: HEGDE & COMPANY) AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 39 S/O LATE M.SRINIVAS HEGDE, R/AT JANAKI KUTEERA, BEEDINAGUDDE, UDUPI-576 101. 3. SRI ASHOK K. PAI, (PROP:KALSANKAR DEEPAM SILKS) AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O SRI K.GOKULDAS PAI, RESIDING AT "MATRAPADA" LIC HOUSING COLONY, KADABETTU, UDUPI-586 101. 4. SRI ARNOLD D SILVA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O. SRI LOUIS D SILVA, RESIDING AT 12-1-84C, MOTHER CARE, K.M. MARG, SUPER BAZAR, UDUPI-576 101. 5. SRI K. SATHISH K. KAMATH (PROP:ARUNA CLINIC), AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI K. VAMAN KAMATH, RESIDING AT 2-4-14C8, RAJ TOWERS, NEAR CITY BUS STAND, UDUPI-576 101. 6. SRI H. GANESH NAYAK, (PROFESSIONAL COURIER), AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O SRI H. DEVADAS NAYAK, RESIDING AT COURT BACK ROAD, UDUPI-576 101. 7. SRI JAYARAJ SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 40 S/O SRI VASU SHETTY, R/AT 16-58B, CHANDRAMAA, ANANATHNAGAR, FIRST STAGE, MANIPAL, UDUPI-576 101. 8. SRI BALAKRISHNA I, (PARTNER :SUMUKH SERVICES) AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O. SRI GANAPATHI NAYAK, R/AT "SHAIPRAJA NILAYA", PAREEKA POST, PARKALA, UDUPI-576 109. 9. MS. HELEN V. SALINS, (HEADMISTRESS:CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL), AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, D/O. MR. LEMUEL SALINS, R/AT "NEIL" NEAR KRISHNA GAS, KINNIMULKY OLD ROAD, UDUPI-576 101. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S PARTHASARATHI, SRI P DINESH AND MS.JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR -3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, U.P-201 010. 2. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 41 MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND TO HOLD PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E OF ACT AS ULTRA VIRES OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. W.P.NOs.25841-25848/2014: BETWEEN: 1. MINTENT SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT LTD., NO.486, 10TH CROSS, 27TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-1, BANGALORE-560 034. BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI.K.KRISHNAMOORTHY, S/O KAILASAM, AGED 63 YEARS. 2. PRABHAT JEWELLARY MART NO.817, CHICKPET, BANGAKIRE-560053, BY ITS PROPRIETOR M.S.AMARNATH S/O M.S.SREE RAMAIAH SHETTY, AGED 52 YEARS. 3. WEB TECHNOLOGIES NO.52, 46TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, 42 BANGALORE-560 010 BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.AYAZ AHMED KHAN, S/O IQBAL AHMED KHAN, AGED 44 YEARS 4. S.L.V. BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS NO.256, 14TH MAIN, 7TH SECTOR, BDA COMPLEX, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560102 BY ITS PARTNER SRI.A.K.NAIDU S/O KRISHNAMA NAIDU, AGED 37 YEARS. 5. SKYTECH INFINITE PLATFORM PVT.LTD., NO.6/1, MUNISWAMAPPA ROAD, MARUTHI SEVA NAGAR POST, BANASWADI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560033 BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI.P.DEIVEEKAN S/O N.PARAMASIVAN, AGED 42 YEARS 6. STRATYCON BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. NO.319, 14TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 011 BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI.RAVIPRAKASH KONI, S/O GANAPAYYA MADHYASTHA KONI 7. T-TEL COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. NO.424 (NEW #8) 21ST CROSS, EJIPURA MAIN ROAD, VIVEKANAGAR POST, 43 BANGALORE-560047, BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI.TEDDY JOSEPH S/O THOOMBUNKAL THOMAS JOSE AGED 41 YEARS. 8. CRAIGMORE TEXTILES PVT. LTD. NH4, TAVAREKERE ROAD, NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE-562123 BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI.S.RAMACHANDRA, S/O SHIVANDAS L.THANVANI, AGED 75 YEARS, .. PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S R SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE, SRI.CHAITANYA V.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI NEW DELHI-100 010. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 4TH FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE-11 CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 44 4. TDS RECONCILIATION ANALYSIS AND CORRECTION ENABLING SYSTEM TDS CPC, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, UP-201010. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT FINANCE ACT N0.2 OF 2012 BY WAY OF INSERTION OF SECTION 234E TO INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS UNREASONABLE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEING OPPOSED TO ARTICLE 265 AND 277 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WHEREFORE, IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY AND MOST HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO HOLD SAID IMPUGNED PROVISION OF SECTION 234E OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AS VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR REASONS SET OUT IN THIS PETITION AND FOR WHICH PETITIONER SHALL EVER BE GRATEFUL. W.P.NOs.26586-26587/2014: BETWEEN: M/s.BUILDMET PRIVATE LIMITED 45, YAMUNABAI ROAD MADHAVANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR , SRI H N VARADARAJAN AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS SON OF SRI H R NIGAMANTHAN ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. S PARTHASARATHI, SRI P DINESH AND MS.JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATES) 45 AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS AAYKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-3 VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD UP- 201 010. 2. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE NEW DELHI 110 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND TO HOLD PROVISIONS OF SEC.234E OF IT ACT AS ULTRA VIRES OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. W.P.NO.26588/2014: BETWEEN: M/s. MEDHA PROJECTS 9, 17TH CROSS MALLESWARAM BANGALORE -560 055 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SMT SANDHYA S 46 AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS WIFE OF SRI G R SURESH. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. S PARTHASARATHI, SRI P DINESH AND MS.JINITA CHATTERJEE ADVOCATES) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, AAYKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-3, VAISHALI GHAZIABAD, UP- 201 010. 2. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE NEW DELHI 110 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH & HOLD PROVISIONS OF SEC.234E OF IT ACT AS ULTRA VIRES OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. W.P.NOs.10243/2014 & 11891-11894/2014: BETWEEN: DR V. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O VENKATAPPA, RESIDING AT #133, LEELA HOSPITAL, 10TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD, 47 MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560003. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. BALRAM R RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110 001. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRD FLOOR, HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, AYKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABHAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) 48 THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ONLINE INTIMATIONS/ORDERS OF R-5 DTD.14.11.2013 AND 15.11.2013 PASSED UNDER SECTION 200A OF ACT FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 AND 2013-14 IN COMMUNICATION VIDE ANNEXURES-A1-A5. W.P.NOs.15476/2014 & 16111-16113/2014: BETWEEN: CENTRAL POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE P B NO.8066, PROF. SIR C V RAMAN ROAD BANGALORE-560080 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER SRI.N R PADMANABHA S/O SRI N S RANGANATHA RAO ABOUT 56 YEARS. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT.VANI H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY O FINANCE SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 4TH FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI-110001. 49 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 4. TDS RECONCILIATION ANALYSIS AND CORRECTION ENABLING SYSTEM REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN TDS CPC, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE NEWLY INSERTED SECTION 234E TO INCOME TAX ACT 1961 BY FINANCE ACT 2012 AS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 265 AND 277 AND THUS ULTRA VIRES CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. W.P.NO.24023/2014: BETWEEN: CENTRAL POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, P B NO.8066, PROF. SIR C V RAMAN ROAD, BANGALORE-560080 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SRI. N R PADMANABHA, S/O SRI.N S RANGANATHA RAO AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS ... PETITIONER (BY SMT.VANI H, ADVOCATE) 50 AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 4TH FLOOR JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, PARLIMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE-560 001. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TDS RECONCILIATION ANALYSIS AND CORRECTION ENABLING SYSTEM TDS CPC, AAYKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADES-201010. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE NEWLY INSERTED SECTION 234E TO INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 AS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 265 AND 277 AND THUS ULTRA VIRES 51 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. W.P.NO.46360/2014: BETWEEN: CENTRAL POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, P.B. NO.8066, PROF. SIR C V RAMAN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 080, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SRI N R PADMANABHA, S/O SRI N S RANGANATHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. VANI H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 4TH FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 52 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RECONCILIATION ANALYSIS AND CORRECTION ENABLING SYSTEM, TDS CPC, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SECOTR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE NEWLY INSERTED SECTION 234E TO INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 AS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 265 AND THUS ULTRA VIRES CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. W.P.NOs.41614-41617/2014: BETWEEN: 1. SRI. FATHERAJ SINGHVI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI P R SINGHVI NO.416 & 232,"SHANTHI" #8,VISHRANTHI ENCLAVE KANAKAPURA ROAD, DODDAKALASANDRA POST, BANGALORE-560 062 2. SRI D DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI K DEVAPPA, NO.202, PARIJAT, 45/1, FAIR FIELD LAYOUT, 53 RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 3. SRI UNNI RAJAGOPAL AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI K P RAJAGOPAL NO.B-1503, GODREJ WOODSMAN ESTATE, AMCO BATTERIES COMPOUND, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 024. 4. SRI SEKHAR VASAN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O SRI S S VASAN, NO.51, RANGA RAO ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE-560 004. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHANKAR A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 4TH FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE-II CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, 54 QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 4. TDS RECONCILIATION ANALAYSIS AND CORRECTION ENABLING SYSTEM TDS CPC, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT FINANCE ACT NO.2 OF 2012 BY WAY OF INSERTION OF SECTION 234E TO INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS UNREASONABLE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEING OPPOSED TO ARTICLE 265 AND 277 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. WHEREFORE, IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY AND MOST HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO HOLD SAID IMPUGNED PROVISION OF SECTION 234E OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AS VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR REASONS SET OUT IN THIS PETITION AND FOR WHICH PETITIONER SHALL EVER BE GRATEFUL. W.P.NO.41618/2014: BETWEEN: M/s.SUN ZONE SOLAR SYSTEMS REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.PADMANABH.S.T AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, SON OF SRI.SHIVARAPPA T 55 NO.1/4, BALAGANGADHAR NAGAR, BEHIND KANYAKUMARI SCHOOL, MALLATHAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 056. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHANKAR A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 4TH FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI-110 001. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE-II CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 4. TDS RECONCILIATION ANALYSIS AND CORRECTION ENABLING SYSTEM, TDS CPC, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010. REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 56 CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WRIT OF DECLARATION OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DECLARING THAT FINANCE ACT NO.2 OF 2012 BY WAY OF INSERTION OF SECTION 234E TO INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS UNREASONABLE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEING OPPOSED TO ARTICLE 265 AND 277 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, AND HOLD SAID IMPUGNED PROVISION OF SECTION 234E OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AS VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR REASONS SET OUT IN THIS PETITION AND FOR WHICH PETITIONER SHALL EVER BE GREATFUL. W.P.NOs.38130-38134/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M.S.ARASU BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS NO.175, SRI LAKSHMI DEVI NILAYA, 5TH FLOOR, BSK 3RD STAGE, SRINIVASANAGAR, GIRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560085. BY ITS PARTNER SRI.B.H.MAHALINGAPPA, S/O SRI.HUCHHEGOWDA, AGED 47 YEARS. 2. RAVINDRA KUMAR GOENKA 52 YEARS 5TH CROSS, TEA PAVILION, 17TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, 57 KHB COLONY, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560034. 3. HI-TECH FORGINGS (BANGALORE) PVT.LTD., V-1(A), 3RD CROSS, 1ST STAGE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BANGALORE-560058 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.RAMBABU.D S/O LATE SUBBA RAO, AGED 60 YEARS. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S R SHIVA PRAKASH, ADVOCATE & SRI.CHAITANYA V.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 4TH FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE-II CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE-560 001. 58 4. TDS RECONCILIATION ANALYSIS AND CORRECTION ENABLILNG SYSTEM TDS CPC, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, U.P-201010. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT FINANCE ACT NO.2 OF 2012 BY WAY OF INSERTION OF SECTION 234E TO INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS UNREASONABLE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEING OPPOSED TO ARTICLE 265 AND 277 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. WHEREFORE, IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY AND MOST HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO HOLD SAID IMPUGNED PROVISION OF SEC. 234E OF INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 AS VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR REASONS SET OUT IN THIS PETITION AND FOR WHICH PETITIONER SHALL EVER BE GRATEFUL. W.P.NOs.53286-53289/2014 & 53290-53291/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.MAHRISHI MELTCHEMS PRIVATE LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI RAM BILAS BHUTARA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O SRI SUGAN CHAND BHUTARA COMPANY IS SITUTATED AT NO.3, MAHRISHI MANSION, 3RD CROSS, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 026. 59 2. M/s. SUDHA MELTCHMES PRIVATE LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI RAJARAM BHUTARA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O SRI SUGAN CHAND BHUTARA COMPANY IS SITUATED AT NO.3, MAHRISHI MANSION, 3RD CROSS, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 026. 3. M/s.MAHRISHI ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI RAJARAM BHUTARA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O SRI SUGAN CHAND BHUTARA COMPANY IS SITUATED AT NO.3, MAHRISHI MANSION, 3RD CROSS, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 026. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHANKAR A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECTOR TAXES REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 4TH FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE-II, 60 CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 0001. 4. TDS RECONCILIATION ANALYSIS AND CORRECTION ENABLING SYSTEM TDS CPC, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010. .. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT FINANCE ACT NO.2 OF 2012 BY WAY OF INSERTION OF SECTION 234E TO INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS UNREASONABLE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEING OPPOSED TO ARTICLE 265 AND 277 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, AND HOLD SAID IMPUGNED PROVISION OF SECTION 234E OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AS VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR REASONS SET OUT IN THIS PETITION AND FOR WHICH PETITIONER SHALL EVER BE GRATEFUL. W.P.NOs.38127-38129/2014: BETWEEN: SREE C B EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST SY NO.122 & 124,CBIT SRINIVASPURA ROAD TORADEVANDA HALLI (V) KOLAR- 563 101 61 BY ITS SECRETARY SRI V KRISHNA REDDY S/O SRI LATE BENKATASWAMY AGED 52 YEARS. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. S R SHIVA PRAKASH, ADVOCATE & SRI.CHAITANYA V.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI NEW DELHI -110 001. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 4TH FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI- 110 001. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE- II CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE -560 001. 4. TDS RECONCILIATION ANALYSIS AND CORRECTION ENABLING SYSTEM TDS CPC, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, U P -201010. REP. BY ITS ASST. COMMISSIONER I.T. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) 62 THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT FINANCE ACT NO.2/12 BY WAY OF INSERTION OF SEC.234E TO INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS UNREASONALBE & UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEING OPPOSED TO ARTICLE 265 & 277 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA & BE PLEASED TO HOLD SAID IMPUGNED PROVISON OF SEC.234E OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AS VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR REASONS SET OUT IN THIS PETITION & FOR WHICH PETITIONER SHALL EVER BE GRATEFUL, VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A3 SO FAR PETITIONER CONCERNED. W.P.NO.37689/2014: BETWEEN: M/s.PRAKASH BUS CORPORATION PVT., LTD., SURVEY NO.26 & 1, KENDATTI GOLOLAHALLI VILLA, VAKKALERI HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK-563133, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SIR SUBASH KAUL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI AVTAR KRISHEN KAUL. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. S PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE & SRI P. DINESH AND JINITA CHATTERJEE ADVOCATES) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, 63 AAYKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, UP-201010. 2. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND TO HOLD PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E OF ACT EXTRACTED AT PAGE NO. 5 ABOVE AS ULTRA VIRES OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA VIDE ANNEXURES-A, A1 & A2. W.P.NOs.5641-5658/2015 BETWEEN: 1. LOCAL AUDIT CIRCLE DAVANAGERE NO.49, 2ND FLOOR, D C OFFICE, LOCAL AUDIT CIRCLE, DAVANGERE-577006 BY ITS ASSISTANT CONTROLLER SHRI BASAVARAJU B S S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGED 59 YEARS 2. SRI VEERAMAHESHWARA CREDIT CO- OPERATIVE SOCITEY LTD., #683/2, 8TH MAIN, P J EXTENSION, 64 DAVANGERE-577002 BY ITS SECREARY SMT T N TANUJA AGED 46 YEARS. 3. SHRI ARUNA CONSTRUCTION PVT., LTD., #372/373, SRI DEVI PROPERTIES, 80FT ROAD, SECTOR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE-560064 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI J RAMA RAJU S/O S SATYA NARAYANA RAJU AGED 48 YEARS. 4. SRI BHARANI CONSTRUCTIONS NAGARJUNA ENG. COLLEGE AND VENKATAKA GIRI KOTE POST, DEVANA HALLI, BANGALORE-562110. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER I V R V NARASIMHA RAJU S/O V SATYNARAYANA RAJU AGED 57 YEARS. 5. SRI KRSIHNA CONSTRUCTIONS #786, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH CROSS, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE-560064 BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI NARASIMHA RAJU S/O SATYANARAYANA RAJU AGED 46 YEARS. 6. SRI GAYATRI CONSTRUCTIONS H NO.3, MATHRU LAYOUT, 7TH CROSS, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, 65 BANGALORE-560065 BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI NARASIMHA RAJU S/O SATYNARAYANA RAJU AGED 46 YEARS. 7. SRI SATYA CONSTRUCTIONS # 437, HIG SECTOR, 9TH CROSS, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE-560064 BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI J VENUGOPALA KRISHNA RAJU S/O J SATYANARAYANA RAJU AGED 47 YEARS. 8. SRI BALAJI CONSTRUCTIONS #1001, RIVERA BLOCK, PRESTIGE MO, PUTTENHALLI YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064 BY ITS M SURYANARAYANA RAJU, S/O M SURYANARAYANA RAJU AGED 65 YEARS. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S R SHIVA PRAKASH, ADVOCATE & SRI.CHAITANYA V.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN 66 DEPARTMENT TO REVENUE 4TH FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUIDLING, PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI-110001. 3. COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE-II CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 4. TDS RECONCILIATION ANALYSIS AND CORRECTION ENABLING SYSTEM TDS CPC, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, U P-201010 REP. BY DEPUTY COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CPC TDS. .. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT FINANCE ACT NO.2/2012 BY WAY OF INSERTION OF SEC. 234E TO INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS UNREASONABLE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEING OPPOSED TO ARTICLE 265 AND 277 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. WHEREFORE, IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLLY AND MOST HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO HOLD SAID IMPUGNED PROVISION OF SEC. 234E OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AS VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR REASONS SET OUT IN THIS PETITION FOR WHICH PETITIONER SHALL EVER BE GRATEFUL. 67 THESE WRIT PETITIONS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, COURT MADE FOLLOWING: ORDER In all these petitions constitutional validity of Section 234E of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short `Act ) has been challenged contending it is ultra vires of Constitution of India and/or to declare by appropriate writ that under newly inserted Section 234E of Act, fee could be levied only after affording petitioners reasonable opportunity and for consequential relief of quashing intimations whereunder fee has been levied under Section 234E for late filing of TDS statements. 2. I have heard arguments of Sriyuths K.P.Kumar, M.V.Seshachala, learned Senior Advocates, Sriyuths P.Dinesh, Smt.Jinita Chatterjee for Sri.S.Parthasarathi, R.Ramamurthy R., Chythanya K.K., S.R.Shivaprakash, Chaitanya V. Mudrabettu, Aravind V. 68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. learned advocates appearing for petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as written or consideration for services rendered and in instant case Government is not providing any service to deductors and as such levy of fee under Section 234E of Act is invalid. (b) imposition of `fee on tax deductors without any corresponding 69 service being rendered to them is wholly unjustified and leads to arbitrary and high pitched demands being raised under Act, more so without opportunity of hearing being extended to deductors. (c) For levy of `fee services should be rendered by State and it is quid- pro-quo. In absence of any services being rendered by State to demand `fee or levy of such fee would be without authority of law. There being no rational or nexus to `levy of fee under impugned provision for `service being rendered by State (which is none), such imposition is bad-in-law, unconstitutional and ultra vires of Constitution. 70 (d) impugned provision overrides charging Section namely Section 4(1) of Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as deterrence against delayed filing of TDS statements, Fee is sought to be recovered under Section 234E, it is levy of penalty in disguise though impugned Section is included under Chapter XVII of Act. (f) Section 271H provides for penalties imposable and if delay in filing TDS statements is beyond one 71 year, then both Sections 234E and 271H will be attracted for same default and no person can be punished for same default/offence more than once and it is hit by Article 20(2) of Constitution of India. (g) Impugned provision is against principle of audi alterum partem - no one should be condemned unheard, inasmuch as Section 272A(2)(k) was replaced by introduction of two Sections namely Section 234E and 271H and undisputedly as per repealed Section 272A(4) of Act such penalty could not had been levied unless opportunity of being heard is extended to person. Whereas impugned 72 provision does not afford opportunity of being heard to deductor before levy of penalty. (h) impugned provision is beyond legislative competence of Parliament under Article 246(1) read with Entry 82 of List I of Schedule 7 of Constitution of India since by impugned provision it seeks to impose `fee for delay in filing statement of taxes deducted at source visa-viz., `taxes on income as envisaged in Entry 82 of List I of Schedule 7. (i) Taxes having been deducted at source and having been remitted to credit of Central Government by deductors within stipulated time, no loss is caused to exchequer 73 and as such impugned levy under Section 234E of Act amounts to abuse of legislative power. (j) impugned provision is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India as it imposes unreasonable restriction on business carried on by petitioners by imposing unnecessary and excessive levies under garb of `fee . (k) When various causes for delay in filing of statements of taxes deducted at source would be there, if same is not taken into account, it would lead to unreasonable and unwarranted hardship to deductors and therefore imposition of fee without affording opportunity of hearing to 74 explain cause for such delay has to be struck down as being opposed to principles of natural justice. (l) Department itself is not clear as to whether it is fee or penalty or what service is being rendered and if so, to whom. But on other hand, objects or reasons for introducing impugned Section 234E would indicate it is qualitatively imposition of penalty. (m) When there is civil obligation and consequences which flow from non compliance entails such person of being extended opportunity to explain. In absence of such in built provision being available 75 provision would be against principles of natural justice. (n) On principles of proportionality impugned provision has to be struck down since fee is not levied on quantum of income but on number of days delay. (o) scheme of Section 234E appears to be irrational and failure to classify properly amongst deductors, there is intelligible differentia between same class of persons. In support of their submissions they have relied upon following Judgments: (1) High Court of Judicature at Bombay - W.P.771/2014 Mr.Rashmikant Kundalia and another Vs Union of India and others 76 (2) 2006 STC Vol.145 544 Jindal Stainless Ltd., and another Vs State of Haryana and others (3) AIR 1996 SC 767 Secretary to Government of Madras and anr Vs P.R.Sriramulu and anr (4) AIR 1989 SC 100 P.M.Ashwathanarayana Setty and others Vs State of Karnataka and others (5) AIR 2003 SC 4650 State of U.P. and others Vs Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd., and others (6) AIR 1974 SC 555 E.P.Royappa Vs State of Tamil Nadu and another (7) (2001)2 SCC 386 Om Kumar and others Vs Union of India (8) 1993 ITR Vol.199 530 C.B.Gautam Vs Union of India and others (9) 2002 ITR Vol.254 755 Dr.Prannoy Roy and another Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another (10) 2009 ITR Vol.309 231 Commissioner of Income-Tax and another Vs Pranoy Roy and another 77 (11) (2007)10 SCC 342 State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemical Corporation Ltd. (12) ITA Nos.2564/2005 C/W 2565/2005 Commissioner of Income Tax and anr Vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (13) (2006) 206 CTR 0175 Civil Appeal No.4633/2006 Rajesh Kumar and ors Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income tax and others (14) (2008)216 CTR 0303 Civil Appeal Nos.2783 & 2784/2008 Sahara India (Firm) Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and anr (15) (2010)234 CTR 0153 Civil Appeal Nos.7541 & 7542/2010- GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and anr (16) AIR 1954 SC 282 (Vol.41) Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras Vs Sri.Lashmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri.Shirur Mutt (17) (1995)1 SCC 655 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and others Vs Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. 78 (18) AIR 1981 SC 1863 Southern Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals, Trichur and others Vs State of Kerala and others (19) W.P.6918-6938/2014 (20) (1980) 1 SCC 416 Kewal Krishan Puri and anr Vs State of Punjab and another 4. Per contra, learned panel counsel Sriyuths K.V.Aravind and Jeevan J. Neeralagi would support impugned provision and contend that `fee leviable by impugned provision has nothing to do with quantum of money involved and it is based on number of days delay in filing TDS statements. They would elaborate their submissions by contending that tax deduction at source (TDS) is one of modes of collection of taxes which after deduction by deductor, same is required to be credited to account of Central Government within prescribed period and thereby deductee gets credit of amount 79 so deducted against his tax liability and same can be taken note off by jurisdictional assessing Officer of deductee only on information that would be furnished by deductor to Department. It is contended that significance of TDS lies in fact that it prepones collection of tax to ensure regular source of revenue and wider base for tax. 5. It is contended that under Act there is obligation on Department to process income tax returns filed by assessee within specified period and such processing can be done only when information relating to details of tax deducted is furnished in statement filed by deductor within prescribed time. Such timely process is bedrock of efficient tax administration system and in cases of where refund claims are not processed timely, it results in: 80 Confidence of general tax payer being eroded. Late payment of refund results in payment of interest. Delay in receipt of refund results into cash flow crunch especially for business activity. 6. It is contended that Section 119(2)(a) has been introduced simultaneously which provides for hardship, reasons beyond control etc., to be explained by deductor and as such contention of petitioners that impugned provision being hit by doctrine of audi alterum partem is not at all attracted to facts on hand. It is submitted that to mitigate hardship Section 119(2)(a) simultaneously introduced along with impugned provision and it would act as succor. It is also contended that services rendered by State need not be direct for levy of fee and principle of quid-pro-quo for levy of fee would not be 81 attracted to facts of present case and even otherwise if remote nexus to services rendered is present, it would suffice to sustain constitutional validity. 7. Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned panel counsel appearing for respondent-Department would also very heavily rely upon Division Bench Judgment of Mumbai High Court rendered in W.P.No.771/2014 on 09.02.2015 upholding constitutional validity of impugned provision and prays for dismissal of present writ petitions on identical grounds and also by rejecting contentions raised by learned advocates appearing for petitioners. In support of his submissions he has relied upon following Judgments: (1) (1983) 3 SCC 229- Municipal Corporation of Delhi & others vs. Mohd. Yasin 82 (2) (1983) 3 SCC 353- Sreenivasa General Traders & Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others (3) (1995) 1 SCC 655- Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti & Others vs. Orient Paper & Industries Ltd., (4) (2004) 8 SCC 556- State of H.P & Others vs. Shivalik Agro Poly Products & others (5) (1995) 215 ITR 758 (kar.) Union Home Products Ltd & Others vs. Union of India & others (6) 1989 Supp(1) SCC 696- P.M. Aswathanarayana Setty & Others vs. State of Karnataka (7) (1996) 1 SCC 345- Secretary Government of Madras vs. P.R. Sriramulu and another (8) (2008) 4 SCC 720- Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. P. Laxmi Devi 8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of pleadings as well as case laws relied upon by learned advocates appearing for parties, this Court 83 is of considered view that only issue which requires to be examined is: Whether Section 234E of Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 is to be struck down or its validity is to be upheld? PREFACE: 9. Courts normally lean against construction which reduces statute to futility. maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat liberal construction should be put upon written instruments, so as to uphold them, if possible, and carry into effect intention. It is on application of this principle that Courts while pronouncing upon constitutionality of statute start with presumption in favour of constitutionality and prefer construction which keeps statute within competence of legislature. Lord Denning stated principle in FAWCETT PROPERTIES VS BUCKINGHAM COUNTY COUNCIL 84 reported in (1960) 3 All England Report 503 to following effect: But when statute has some meaning even though it is obscure or several meanings, even though it is little to choose between them, Courts have to say what meaning statute is to bear, rather than reject it as nullity . 10. statute is designed to be workable, and interpretation thereof by Courts should be to secure that object, unless crucial omission or clear direction makes that end unattainable. Therefore, Courts would reject that construction which will defeat plain intention of legislature even though there may be some inexactitude in language and if choice is between two interpretations Courts would accept bolder construction, based on view that Parliament would legislate only for purpose of bringing about effective result rather than accepting narrower view fail to achieve manifest purpose of 85 legislation or in other words construction which would reduce legislation to futility would normally would not be eschewed. Thus, purposive interpretation will have to be taken note of while examining legislative competence of statute or provision in statute when same is under challenge. 11. Keeping above principles in mind, challenge to vires of Section 234E of Income Tax Act in these petitions is being examined. This Court is of considered view that it would be necessary to take note of relevant provisions of Act which have bearing on rival contentions raised in these writ petitions and as such they are extracted herein below and same is analysed, discussed in background of case laws and conclusion is accordingly drawn. Charge of Income-Tax.- 4. (1) Where any Central Act enacts that income-tax shall be charged for any assessment year at any rate or rates, income-tax at that rate or those rates shall 86 be charged for that year in accordance with, and subject to provisions (including provisions for levy of additional income-tax) of, this Act in respect of total income of previous year of every person: Provided that where by virtue of any provision of this Act income-tax is to be charged in respect of income of period other than previous year, income-tax shall be charged accordingly. Instructions to subordinate authorities. 119. (1) xxx (2) Without prejudice to generality of foregoing power, (a) Board may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do, for purpose of proper and efficient management of work of assessment and collection of revenue, issue, from time to time (whether by way of relaxation of any of provisions of Sections [115P, 115S, 115WD, 115WE,115WF, 115WG, 115WH, 115WJ, 115WK,] [139,] 143, 144, 147, 148, 154, 155 [158BFA], [sub-section (1A) of Section 201, Sections 210, 211, 234A, 234B, 234C], 271 and 273 or otherwise), general or special orders in respect of any class of incomes [or fringe benefits] or class of cases, setting forth directions or instructions (not being prejudicial to assessees) as to guidelines, principles or procedures to be 87 followed by other income-tax authorities in work relating to assessment or collection of revenue or initiation of proceedings for imposition of penalties and any such order may, if Board is of opinion that it is necessary in public interest so to do, be published and circulated in prescribed manner for general information; Duty of person deducting tax.- 200. (1) Any person deducting any sum in accordance with [the foregoing provisions of this Chapter] shall pay within prescribed time, sum so deducted to credit of Central Government or as Board directs. (2) Any person being employer, referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192 shall pay, within prescribed time, tax to credit of Central Government or as Board directs. (3) Any person deducting any sum on or after 1st day of April, 2005 in accordance with foregoing provisions of this Chapter or, as case may be, any person being employer referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192 shall, after paying tax deducted to credit of Central Government within prescribed time, [prepare such statements for such period as may be prescribed] and deliver or cause to be delivered to prescribed income-tax authority or 88 person authorised by such authority such statement in such form and verified in such manner and setting forth such particulars and within such time as may be prescribed. 1(Provided that person may also deliver to prescribed authority correction statement for rectification of any mistake or to add, delete or update information furnished in statement delivered under this sub-section in such form and verified in such manner as may be specified by authority) Fee for defaults in furnishing statements. 234E. (1) Without prejudice to provisions of Act, where person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered statement within time prescribed in sub-section (3) of Section 200 or proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C, he shall be liable to pay, by way of fee, sum of two hundred rupees for every day during which failure continues. (2) amount of fee referred to in sub- Section (1) shall not exceed amount of tax deductible or collectible, as case may be. (3) amount of fee referred to in sub- section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing to be delivered statement in accordance with sub-section (3) of Section 1 . Inserted by Finance Act (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 1-10-2014 89 200 or proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C. (4) provisions of this section shall apply to statement referred to in sub- section (3) of Section 200 or proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as case may be, on or after 1st day of July, 2012. Penalty for failure to furnish statements, etc. 271H. (1) Without prejudice to provisions of Act, (the Assessing Officer may direct that person shall pay by way of) penalty, if, he (a) fails to deliver or cause to be delivered statement within time prescribed in sub-section (3) of Section 200 or proviso to sub- section (3) of Section 206C ; or (b)furnishes incorrect information in statement which is required to be delivered or cause to be delivered under sub-section (3) of Section 200 or proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C. (2) penalty referred to in sub- section (1) shall be sum which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in foregoing provisions of this Section, no penalty shall be levied for failure 90 referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), if person proves that after paying tax deducted or collected along with fee and interest, if any, to credit of Central Government, he had delivered or cause to be delivered statement referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 200 or proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C before expiry of period of one year from time prescribed for delivering or causing to be delivered such statement. (4) provisions of this section shall apply to statement referred to in sub- section (3) of Section 200 or proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as case may be, on or after 1st day of July, 2012. Penalty for Failure to Answer Questions, Sign Statements, Furnish Information, Returns or Statements, Allow Inspections, Etc. 272 (1) xxx (2) If any person fails- (a) to (f) xxx (g) to furnish certificate as required by Section 203 (or Section 206C); or (h) to (j) xxx (k) to deliver or cause to be delivered copy of statement within time specified in sub-section (3) of 91 Section 200 or proviso to sub- section (3) of Section 206C. He shall pay, by way of penalty, sum [of one hundred rupees] for every day during which failure continues: Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases.- 273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in provisions of (clause (b) of sub-section (1) of) (Section 271, Section 271A, Section 271AA), Section 271B, (Section 271BA), (Section 271BB), Section 271C, (Section 271CA), Section 271D, Section 271E, (Section 271F, Section 271FA), (Section 271FB), (Section 271G), (Section 271H), clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 272A, sub-section (1) of Section 272AA) or (Section 272B or) sub-section (1) (or sub-section (1A)) of Section 272BB or) (sub-section (1) of Section 272BBB or) clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on person or assessee, as case may be, for any failure referred to in said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for said failure). INCOME TAX RULES, 1961 Statement of deduction of tax under sub- section (3) of Section 200. 31A. (1) Every person responsible for deduction of tax under Chapter XVII-B, 92 shall, in accordance with provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 200, deliver, or cause to be delivered, following quarterly statements to Director General of Income-tax (Systems) or person authorised by Director General of Income-tax (Systems), namely: (a) Statement of deduction of tax under Section 192 in Form No. 24Q; (b) Statement of deduction of tax under Sections 193 to 196D in (i) Form No. 27Q in respect of deductee who is non- resident not being company or foreign company or resident but not ordinarily resident; and (ii) Form No. 26Q in respect of all other deductees. 2) Statements referred to in sub-rule (1) for quarter of financial year ending with date specified in column (2) of Table below shall be furnished by (i) due date specified in corresponding entry in column (3) of said Table, if deductor is office of Government; and (ii) due date specified in corresponding entry in column (4) of said Table, if deductor is person other than person referred to in clause (i) 93 3) (i) statements referred to in sub- rule (1) may be furnished in any of following manners, namely: (a) furnishing statement in paper form; (b) furnishing statement electronically under digital signature in accordance with procedures, formats and standards specified under sub-rule (5); (c) furnishing statement electronically along with verification of statement in Form 27A or verified through electronic process in accordance with procedures, formats and standards specified under sub-rule (5). (ii) Where, (a) deductor is office of Government; or (b) deductor is principal officer of company; or (c) deductor is person who is required to get his accounts audited under Section 44AB in immediately preceding financial year; or (d) number of deductee's records in statement for any quarter of financial year are twenty or more, deductor shall furnish statement in manner specified in [item (b) or item (c) of clause(i)]. (iii) Where deductor is person other than 94 person referred to in clause (ii), statements referred to in sub-rule (1) may, at his option, be delivered or cause to be delivered in manner specified in [item (b) or item (c) of clause (i)]. (3A) claim for refund, for sum paid to credit of Central Government under Chapter XVII-B, shall be furnished by deductor in Form 26B electronically under digital signature in accordance with procedures, formats and standards specified under sub-rule (5)]. (4) deductor at time of preparing statements of tax deducted shall, (i) quote his tax deduction and collection account number (TAN) in statement; (ii) quote his permanent account number (PAN) in statement except in case where deductor is office of Government; (iii) quote permanent account number of all deductees; (iv) furnish particulars of tax paid to Central Government including book identification number or challan identification number, as case may be; (v) furnish particulars of amount paid or credited on which tax was not deducted in view of issue of certificate of no deduction of tax under Section 197 by Assessing Officer of payee; 95 (vi) furnish particulars of amount paid or credited on which tax was not deducted in view of compliance of provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 194C by payee;] (vii) furnish particulars of amount paid or credited on which tax was not deducted in view of furnishing of declaration under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) or sub- section (1C) of Section 197A by payee] (viii) furnish particulars of amount paid or credited on which tax was not deducted in view of notification issued under sub- section (1F) of Section 197A] (5) Director General of Income-tax (Systems) shall specify procedures, formats and standards for purposes of furnishing and verification of statements or claim for refund in Form 26B and shall be responsible for day- to-day administration in relation to furnishing and verification of statements or claim for refund in Form 26B in manner so specified.] (6) Where statement of tax deducted at source is to be furnished for tax deducted before 1st day of April, 2010, provisions of this rule and rule 37A shall apply as they stood immediately before their substitution or omission by Income-tax (Sixth Amendment) Rules, 2010]. 96 ANALYSIS OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS: 12. Section 4 of Act is charging Section. scheme of Section 200 of Act would indicate that duty is cast on person deducting tax to pay within prescribed time sum so deducted to credit of Central Government. When tax has been deducted at source, it does not lie at risk of revenue and unless tax so deducted is deposited or paid, person who has deducted, continues to be responsible. Sub-section (3) of Section 200 would indicate that person deducting any sum is required to deliver to prescribed authority such statement in form verified by setting forth particulars within time prescribed. Rule 31A of Rules prescribe various Forms under which quarterly statements are required to be delivered or cause to be delivered by deductor in accordance with Section 200(3) of Act to Director General of Income Tax (Systems) or 97 person authorised by him. Section 200A inserted by Finance Act 2/2009 effective from assessment year 2011-12 is enabling provision necessitated by centralized electronic processing system consequent on mandatory e-filing of return. Section 201 spells out consequences which would follow assessee, who fails to deduct tax and deposit same within time permissible under statute. Section 202 makes it clear that power to recover tax by deduction of tax at source under foregoing provisions of Chapter XVII is in addition to and without prejudice to any other mode of recovery provided in Act. Section 203 makes it obligatory on person deducting tax to issue certificate to person from whom tax has been deducted. Section 203A provides that it is obligatory on part of person who is liable for tax deduction at source to get this number within prescribed time and it is also obligatory for such person to quote this 98 number in all challans for payment of any sum under Section 200, all certificates under Section 203 and in all returns filed under Sections 206, 206A and 206B, besides any other documents which may be included for this purpose. Section 203AA provides that prescribed Income Tax Authority or person authorised by such authority should prepare and deliver statement containing details of tax deducted or paid and such other prescribed particulars on or after 01.04.2008 to every person from whose income, tax has been deducted or in respect of whose income, tax has been paid. Section 204 defines persons responsible for paying tax deducted at source. Such responsibility depends upon category of payment. Section 205 makes it clear that where tax is deductible at source under provisions of Act, assessee himself will not be called upon to pay tax to extent to which tax had been deducted from income. Section 206 99 makes it obligatory on part of person deducting tax at source to file return within prescribed time in prescribed form. Section 206C deals with procedure of tax collection at source. Section 200(3) or proviso to Section 206C(3) would require person to deliver statement as required in respective section. If statement is not furnished within time prescribed, deductor is liable to pay, by way of fee, sum of Rs.200/- for every day during which failure continues and such fee would not exceed tax deductible or collectable as per Section 234E of Act. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 13. main thrust of arguments addressed by learned advocates appearing on behalf of petitioners as noticed hereinabove is that levy of fee under Section 234E for default in furnishing statements is in guise of penalty and there is no nexus to services rendered by department. In 100 order to examine as to whether fee charged under Section 234E is in fact fee or penalty or compensatory tax, it could be seen from Section 199 of Act that any deduction made in accordance with Section 200 to Section 206 would be treated as payment of tax on behalf of person from whose income deduction was made. assessee while computing his income for being assessed under self assessment as provided under Section 140A will construe deductions made on his behalf as component in his return of income for claiming deduction in payment of tax. bare perusal of Section 244A of Act would indicate that where refund of any amount becomes due to assessee under Act, such assessee would be entitled to receive in addition to amount of refund of tax, simple interest at rate of one-half percent for every month or part of month comprised in period from 1st day of April of assessment year to date on 101 which refund is granted as indicated in sub-section(1)(a) of Act. bare perusal of Section 271H which came to be inserted by Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.07.2012 would indicate it provides for levy of penalty for failure to furnish statements of tax deducted at source under Section 200(3) or under proviso to Section 206C or for furnishing incorrect information. As per sub-section (2), penalty will be not less than 10,000/- and it may extend upto `1,00,000/-. Section 273B indicates that no penalty shall be imposable on person or assessee for any failure referred to in said provision if he proves that there was reasonable cause for such failure. Section 273B has also been amended by adding Section 271H and as already noticed under Section 271H(2)(k) penalty can be imposed for failure to furnish statement within prescribed time. However, by incorporating Section 271H in Section 273B, it would indicate that penalty 102 need not be imposed under Section 271H if reasonable cause is shown. contention of assessee is that there is no similar provision in impugned provision namely Section 234E and as such it takes away valuable right of assessee. said contention does not hold water inasmuch as Section 119(2)(a) enables Board to issue general or special orders in respect of any class of incomes or class of cases from time to time, which includes sub-section(1A) of Section 201 and as such no hardship would be caused to assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 14. Now turning my attention to issue regarding construction of levy of fee contemplated under impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise `tax or `fee simplicitor or it is `compensatory tax , it requires to be noticed that tax is compulsory extraction of money by 103 Government and fee is amount received towards expenditure for rendering service. Hon ble Apex Court in case of COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS, MADRAS V. SRI LAKSHMINDRA THIRTHA SWAMIAR OF SRI SHIRUR MUTT, reported in AIR 1954 SC 282 has succinctly laid down law on this issue having explained distinction of these levies. It has been held that tax is compulsory extraction of money by public authority for public purposes enforceable by law and is not payment for services rendered. fee is generally defined to be charge for special service rendered to individuals by some Governmental agencies. said Judgment came to be followed by Hon ble Apex Court in KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI &OTHERS VS. ORIENT PAPER & INDUSTRIES LTD., reported in (1995) 1 SCC 655 and held that power of any legislature to levy fee is conditioned by fact that it 104 must be by and large quid pro quo for services rendered. However, co-relationship between levy and services rendered is one of general character and not of mathematical exactitude. It came to be held by Hon ble Apex Court, all that is necessary is that there should be relationship between levy of fees and services rendered. After analyzing various Judgments on this aspect, it came to be held as under: 21. Thus what emerges from conspectus of aforesaid decisions is as follows: (1)Though levying of fee is only particular form of exercise of taxing power of State, our Constitution has placed fee under separate category for purposes of legislation. At end of each one of three Legislative Lists, it has given power to particular legislature to legislate on imposition of fee in respect of every one of items dealt with in list itself, except fees taken in Court. (2)The tax is compulsory exaction of money by public authority for public purposes enforceable by law and is not payment for services rendered. There is no quid pro quo 105 between taxpayer and public authority. It is part of common burden and quantum of imposition upon taxpayer depends generally upon his capacity to pay. (3)Fee is charge for special service rendered to individuals or class by some governmental agency. amount of fee levied is supposed to be based on expenses incurred by Government in rendering service though in some cases costs are arbitrarily assessed. Ordinarily, fees are uniform and no account is taken of varying abilities of different recipients to pay. These are various kinds of fees and it is not possible to formulate definition that would be applicable to all cases. (4)The element of compulsion or coerciveness is present in all kinds of impositions though in different degrees and it is not totally absent in fees. Hence it cannot be sole or even material criterion for distinguishing tax from fee. Compulsion lies in fact that payment is enforceable by law against individual in spite of his unwillingness or want of consent and this element is present in taxes as well as in fees. 106 (5)The distinction between tax and fee lies primarily in fact that tax is levied as part of common burden while fee is payment for special benefit or privilege. Fees confer special capacity although special advantage is secondary to primary motive of regulation in public interest. Public interest seems to be at basis of all impositions but in fee it is some special benefit which is conferred and accruing which is reason for imposition of levy. In case of tax, particular advantage if it exists at all, is incidental result of State action. fee is sort of return or consideration for services rendered and hence it is primarily necessary that levy of fee should on face of legislative provision be correlated to expenses incurred by Government in rendering services. As indicated in Article 110(2) of Constitution ordinarily there are two classes of cases where Government imposes fees upon persons. first is of grant of permission or privilege and second for services rendered. In first class of cases, cost incurred by Government for granting of permission or privilege may be very small and amount of imposition levied is based not necessarily upon costs incurred by Government but upon benefit that individual receives. In such 107 cases, tax element is predominant. If money paid by privilege holders goes entirely for expenses of matters of general public utility, fee cannot but be regarded as tax. In other class of cases, Government does some positive work for benefit of persons and money is taken as return for work done or services rendered. (6)There is really no generic difference between tax and fee and taxing power of State may manifest itself in three different forms, viz., special assessments, fees and taxes. Whether cess is tax or fee, would depend upon facts of each case. If in guise of fee, legislature imposes tax it is for Court on scrutiny of scheme of levy, to determine its real character. In determining whether levy is fee, true test must be whether its primary and essential purpose is to render specific services to specific area or classes. It is of no consequence that State may ultimately and indirectly be benefited by it. amount of levy must depend upon extent of services sought to be rendered and if they are proportionate, it would be unreasonable to say that since impost is high it must be tax. Nor can method prescribed by legislature for recovering levy by 108 itself alter its character. method is matter of convenience and though relevant, has to be tested in light of other relevant circumstances. (7)It is not postulate of fee that it must have relation to actual service rendered. However, rendering of service has to be established. service, further, cannot be remote. test of quid pro quo is not to be satisfied with close or proximate relationship in all kinds of fees. good and substantial portion of fee must, however, be shown to be expended for purpose for which fee is levied. It is not necessary to confer whole of benefit on payers of fee but some special benefit must be conferred on them which has direct and reasonable correlation to fee. While conferring some special benefits on payers of fees, it is permissible to render service in general interest of all concerned. element of quid pro quo is not possible or even necessary to be established with arithmetical exactitude. But it must be established broadly and reasonably that amount is being spent for rendering services to those on whom burden of fee falls. There is no postulate of fee that it must have direct relation to actual services rendered by authorities 109 to each individual to obtain benefit of service. element of quid pro quo in strict sense is not always sine qua non for fee. element of quid pro quo is not necessarily absent in every tax. It is enough if there is broad, reasonable and general corelationship between levy and resultant benefit to class of people on which fee is levied though no single payer of fee receives direct or personal benefit from those services. It is immaterial that general public may also be benefited from some of services if primary service intended is for payers of fees. (8)Absence of uniformity is not criterion on which alone it can be said that levy is of nature of tax. legislature has power to enact appropriate retrospective legislation declaring levies as fees by denuding them of characteristics of tax. (9)It is not necessary that amount of fees collected by Government should be kept separately. In view of provisions of Article 266, all amounts received by Governments have to be credited to Consolidated Funds and to public accounts of respective Governments. 110 15. As to whether `fee are amounts paid for privilege and or not obligation, but payment is voluntarily came to be examined by Hon ble Apex Court in SOUTHERN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS, TRICHUR & ORS. ETC. V. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. ETC., AND MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS., V. MOHD. YASIN reported in AIR 1991 SC 1863 and held: 25. `Fees are xxx consolidated fund. It is also increasingly realized that element of quid pro quo stricto senso is not always sine qua non of fee. It is needless to stress that element of quid pro quo is not necessarily absent in very tax. We may, xxx (AIR 1980 SC 1008 at p.1015): element of quid pro quo xxx it par took nature of tax. It seems that Court proceeded on assumption that element of quid pro quo must always be present in fee. traditional concept of quid pro quo is undergoing transformation. 16. Hon ble Apex Court in JINDAL STAINLESS STEEL AND ANR VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in (2006) 145 STC 111 544 while laying down parameters of judicially evolved concept of `compensatory tax vis-a-vis Article 301 has explained difference between tax, fee and compensatory tax in following manner: 42. To sum up, basis of every levy is controlling factor. In case of "a tax", levy is part of common burden based on principle of ability or capacity to pay. In case of "a fee", basis is special benefit to payer (individual as such) based on principle of equivalence. When tax is imposed as part of regulation or as part of regulatory measure, its basis shifts from concept of "burden" to concept of measurable/quantifiable benefit and then it becomes "a compensatory tax" and its payment is then not for revenue but as reimbursement/ recompense to service/facility provider. It is then tax on recompense. Compensatory tax is by nature hybrid but it is more closer to fees than to tax as both fees and compensatory taxes are based on principle of equivalence and on basis of reimbursement/recompense. If impugned law chooses activity like trade and commerce as criterion of its operation and if effect of operation of enactment is to impede trade and commerce then Article 301 is violated . 112 17. element of quid pro quo would not be always sine qua non for levy of fee. If there is broad correlationship between two it would suffice. Hon ble Apex Court in MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & OTHERS VS. MOHD. YASIN reported in (1983) 3 SCC 229 has held to following effect: 9. What do we learn from these precedents? We learn that there is no generic difference between tax and fee, though broadly tax is compulsory exaction as part of common burden, without promise of any special advantages to classes of taxpayers whereas fee is payment for services rendered, benefit provided or privilege conferred'. Compulsion is not hall-mark of distinction between tax and fee. That money collected does not go into separate fund but goes into consolidated fund does not also necessarily make levy tax. Though fee must have relation to services rendered, or advantages conferred, such relation need not be direct, mere causal relation may be enough. Further, neither incidence of fee nor service rendered need be uniform. That others besides those paying fees are also benefited does not detract from character of fee. In fact special benefit or advantage to payers of fees may even be secondary as compared 113 with primary motive of regulation in public interest. Nor is Court to assume role of cost accountant. It is neither necessary nor expedient to weigh too meticulously cost of services rendered etc. against amount of fees collected so as to evenly balance two. broad correlationship is all that is necessary. Quid pro quo in strict sense is not one and only true index of fee; nor is it necessarily absent in tax. 18. This aspect of existence of actual quid pro quo for fee was held not to be essential element by Apex Court in SREENIVASA GENERAL TRADERS & OTHERS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & OTHERS reported in (1983) 4 SCC 353 and it came to be held by Hon ble Apex Court as under: 31. traditional view that there must be actual quid pro quo for fee has undergone sea change in subsequent decisions. distinction between tax and fee lies primarily in fact that tax is levied as part of common burden, while fee is for payment of specific benefit or privilege although special advantage is secondary to primary motive of regulation in public interest. If the, element of revenue for general purpose of State predominates, levy becomes 114 tax. In regard to fees there is, and must always be, correlation between fee collected and service intended to be rendered. In determining whether levy is fee, true test must be whether its primary and essential purpose is to render specific services to specified area or class; it may be of no consequence that State may ultimately and indirectly be benefited by it. power of any legislature to levy fee is conditioned by fact that it must be by and large" quid pro quo for services rendered. However, correlationship between levy and services rendered (sic or) expected is one of general character and not of Mathematical exactitude. All that is necessary is that there should be reasonable "relationship between levy of fee, and services rendered. If authority is needed for this pro position, it is to be found in several decisions of this Court drawing distinction between tax and fee . See: Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, supra; H. H. Sundhundra Thirtha Swamiar v. Commissioner for Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Mysore, Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa; H.H. Shri Swamiji of Shri Admar Mutt vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department; Southern Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals, Trichur & Ors. etc. v. State of Kerala & Ors. etc., and Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., v. Mohd. Yasin, 115 32. There is no generic difference between tax and fee. Both are compulsory exactions of money by public authorities. Compulsion lies in fact that payment is enforceable by law against person inspite of his unwillingness or want of consent. levy in nature of fee does not cease to be of that character merely because there is element of compulsion or coerciveness present in it, nor is it postulate of fee that it must have direct relation to actual service rendered by authority to each individual who obtains benefit of service. It is now increasingly realized that merely because collections for services rendered or grant of privilege or licence are taken to consolidated fund of State and not separately appropriated towards expenditure for rendering service is not by itself decisive. Presumably, attention of Court in Shirur Mutt case was not drawn to Art. 266 of Constitution. Constitution nowhere contemplates it to be essential element of fee that it should be credited to separate fund and not to consolidated fund. It is also increasingly realized that element of quid pro quo in strict sense is not always sine qua non for fee. It is needless to stress that element of quid pro quo is not necessarily absent in every tax: Constitutional Law of India by H.M. Seervai, Vol.2, Second Edn., p. 1252, paras 22, 39. 116 19. It has been noticed by Hon ble Apex Court that indica for levy of fee as indicated in Shirur Mutt s case referred to supra was too technical and rigid and was not in tune with requirement of prevailing social conditions and held that there is no generic difference between tax and fee and requirements for levy of fee is separate appropriation of receipts, if necessary and possible and also held that true test is comprehensive level of value of totality of services set off against totality of receipts. It has been held in STATE OF H.P & OTHERS VS. SHIVALIK AGRO POLY PRODUCTS & OTHERS reported in (2004) 8 SCC 556 as under: 9. After independence of country Governmental functions increased manifold and various legislations were enacted and schemes were introduced for upliftment of society. Many measures were introduced which contained provisions for imposing compensatory and regulatory fees. It was realized that indicia of fee indicated in Shirur Mutt case was too technical and rigid and was not in tune with requirement of 117 prevailing social conditions. characteristics of tax and fee were then examined in considerable detail by three Judge Bench in Sreenivasa General Traders. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1983 SC 1246) and in paragraphs 30 and 31 of judgment, Court held as under: (SCC pp.380-81, paras 31-32) "The traditional view that there must be actual quid pro quo for fee has undergone sea change subsequent to decision in Kewal Krishan Puri vs. State Of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC 1008). Correlationship between levy and services rendered/expected is one of general character and not of mathematical exactitude. All that is necessary is that there should be "reasonable relationship" between levy of fee and services rendered. Moreover, there is no generic difference between tax and fee. Both are compulsory exactions of money by public authorities. Compulsion lies in fact that payment is enforceable by law against person in spite of his unwillingness or want of consent. levy in nature of fee does not cease to be of that character merely because there is element of compulsion or coerciveness present in it, nor is it postulate of fee that it must have direct relation to actual service rendered by authority to each individual who obtains benefit of service. It is now increasingly realized that merely because collections for services rendered or grant of privilege of licence are taken to consolidated fund of State and not separately appropriated towards expenditure for 118 rendering service is not by itself decisive. It is also increasingly realized that element of quid pro quo in strict sense is not sine quo non for fee." 9.1. It is necessary to mention here that observation made in para 47 of judgment in Shirur Mutt case that: (SCR p. 1043) (i)f money thus paid is set apart and appropriated specifically for performance of such work and is not merged in public revenues for benefit of general public, it could be counted as fee and not tax" may not be very accurate at least where fee is being realized by Government, Central or State, in view of constitutional provision. Article 266 of Constitution provides that all revenues received by Government of India, all loans raised by that Government by issue of treasury bills, loans or ways and means advances and all moneys received by that Government in repayment of loans shall form one consolidated fund to be entitled "the Consolidated Fund of India", and all revenues received by Government of State, all loans raised by that Government by issue of treasury bills, loans or ways and means advances and all moneys received by that Government in repayment of loans shall form one consolidated fund to be entitled "the Consolidated Fund of State". In view of this specific provision any amount realized by way of fee by Central Government or State Government 119 has to be credited to Consolidated Fund of India or of State concerned, as case may be, and will thus necessarily get merged in public revenues and cannot be set apart. 20. There cannot be any dispute to fact that assessee is required to file e-returns to Central Processing Centre CPC for processing of statements of tax deducted at source vide Section 200A, which provision is in para materia with Section 143(1). While processing return of income under Section 143(1)(a) no personal hearing is provided to assessee and as such same is also not provided under Section 200A. Thus, doctrine of principles of natural justice is given go by under impugned provision or its violation thereof would not be ground available to petitioners to challenge impugned provision on this ground. Hence, contention raised in this regard is without merit and stands rejected. 120 21. person responsible for deduction of tax namely deductor is required to furnish periodical statements containing details of deduction of tax within prescribed due date. Any delay in furnishing TDS statements would result in perennial problems being faced by department while processing return of income filed by assessees. When return of income is filed by assessee statutory obligation is cast on department to process said return of income within specified period from date of filing. If for want of details such return of income not being processed or assessment order not being framed or would be stalled or in other words return of income filed by assessee on whose behalf tax has already been deducted by deductor is not furnished within prescribed time by such deductor, it would consequently have cascading effect namely, it would stall processing of return of income filed by 121 deductee. In given case, there might be instances of where assessee would be entitled to refund and on account of delay occurring due to non delivery of TDS statements by deductors, it would result in delay in extending credit of TDS to person on whose behalf tax is deducted and consequently it would result in delayed issuance of refunds to deductee or raising of consequential demands against deductee which otherwise would not have been raised. In this lengthy and unwarranted process it may erode confidence reposed by tax payer on department. Last but not least, it would result in financial burden to Government namely on account of late payment of refund interest is to be paid on such refunds and it would also result in cash flow crunch, especially for business entities. 22. It also requires to be noticed that Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Mumbai in 122 case of RASHMIKANTH KUNDALIA AND ANOTHER VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS in W.P.No.771/2014 disposed of on 06.02.2015 had occasion to examine constitutional validity of Section 234E and while upholding its validity and arriving at conclusion that it is intra vires of Constitution has opined as under: 18. We are therefore clearly of view that fee sought to be levied under Section 234E of Income Tax Act, 1961 is not in guise of tax that is sought to be levied on deductor. We also do not find provisions of Section 234E as being onerous on ground that Section does not empower Assessing Officer to condone delay in late filing of TDS return/statements, or that no appeal is provided for from arbitrary order passed under Section 234E. It must be noted that right of appeal is not matter of right but is creature of statute, and if Legislature deems it fit not to provide remedy of appeal, so be it. Even in such scenario it is not as if aggrieved party is left remediless. Such aggrieved person can always approach this Court in its extra ordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India, as case may be. We therefore cannot agree with argument of Petitioners that simply because no remedy of appeal is provided for, provisions of Section 234E are 123 onerous. Similarly, on same parity of reasoning, we find argument regarding condonation of delay also to be wholly without any merit . This Court is in complete agreement with view expressed by Mumbai High Court and as such contention of petitioners cannot be accepted for this reason also. 23. This Court in exercise power vested under Article 226 of Constitution can declare statute or provision in statute as unconstitutional and there cannot be any dispute with regard to this proposition. However, such power would be exercised where it is clear that impugned Act or provision is beyond its legislative competence or violates provisions of Constitution of India. Where two views are possible, one making statute constitutional and other making it unconstitutional former would prevail or would be preferred. Every effort would be made by Courts to 124 uphold constitutional validity of statute even if it requires giving constrained construction or narrowing down its scope. Courts would not sit in arm chair of legislature to examine as to whether impugned legislation in its opinion is wise or unwise. Further statutes relating to economic activities of State would be viewed with greater latitude than other laws, inasmuch as Courts do not possess economic expertise or has administrative expertise and as such judicial restraint is exhibited particularly when economic legislation is under challenge. These facets have been extensively dealt with by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS VS P.LAXMI DEVI SMT. reported in (2008) 4 SCC 720 and held as under: 46. In our opinion, there is one and only one ground for declaring Act of legislature (or provision in Act) to be invalid, and that is if it clearly violates some provision of Constitution in so evident manner as to leave no manner of doubt. This violation can, of course, be in 125 different ways, e.g. if State legislature makes law which only Parliament can make under List I to Seventh Schedule, in which case it will violate Article 246(1) of Constitution, or law violates some specific provision of Constitution (other than directive principles). But before declaring statute to be unconstitutional, Court must be absolutely sure that there can be no manner of doubt that it violates provision of Constitution. If two views are possible, one making statute constitutional and other making it unconstitutional, former view must always be preferred. Also, Court must make every effort to uphold constitutional validity of statute, even if that requires giving strained construction or narrowing down its scope vide Rt. Rev. Msgr. Mark Netto v. State of Kerala SCC para 6: AIR para 6. Also, it is none of concern of Court whether legislation in its opinion is wise or unwise. 67. Hence if two views are possible, one making provision in statute constitutional, and other making it unconstitutional, former should be preferred vide Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar. Also, if it is necessary to uphold constitutionality of statute to construe its general words narrowly or widely, Court should do so vide G.P. Singh's `Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 9th Edition, 2004 page 497'. Thus xxx would have become unconstitutional. 126 68. Court must, therefore, make every effort to uphold constitutional validity of Statute, even if that requires giving statutory provision strained meaning, or narrower or wider meaning, than what appears on face of it. It is only when all efforts to do so fail should Court declare statute to be unconstitutional. 80. However, we find no paradox at all. As regards economic and other regulatory legislation judicial restraint must be observed by Court and greater latitude must be given to legislature while adjudging constitutionality of statute because Court does not consist of economic or administrative experts. It has no expertise in these matters, and in this age of specialization when policies have to be laid down with great care after consulting specialists in field, it will be wholly unwise for Court to encroach into domain of executive or legislative (sic legislature) and try to enforce its own views and perceptions. 24. Thus, viewed from any angle it cannot be held that Section 234E of Income Tax Act, 1961 suffers from any vices for being declared to be ultra vires of Constitution. In other words it has to be held that impugned Section i.e., 234E of Income Tax Act, 1961 is intra vires of Constitution. 127 25. For reasons assigned hereinabove, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions and they are hereby dismissed. No costs. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE SBN M/s. Lakshminirman Bangalore Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Centralized Processing Cell-TDS/Union of India