IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10887 of 2014 Ajit Kumar Singh S/o Sri Amrendra Kumar Singh, H.No. A/18, Abhiyanta Nagar, Ashiana Nagar, P.S. Rajiv Nagar, Patna - 800025 Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Union Of India, New Delhi, Represented by Secretary to Govt. of India, Finance Department, New Delhi- 110001 2. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, 3. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) 6th Floor, Central Revenue Building (Annexie) , Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna - 800 001 Bihar 4. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Patna 5. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Centralized Processing Cell - TDS, Aaykar Bhawan, Sector - 3, Vaishali Ghaziabad - 201010 Uttar Pradesh Respondent/s Appearance : For Petitioner/s : Mr. Aman Raja, Advocate For Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate CORAM: HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 20-08-2020 Petitioner has prayed for following relief(s): For declaration that section 234E of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as Act ) as unconstitutional, ultra virus and against rights guaranteed to citizen of India under Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India, whereas fee for default in furnishing statement under heading Levy of fee in certain cases in chapter XVII-Collection and Recovery-Interest Chargeable, has been levied. Patna High Court CWJC No.10887 of 2014 dt.20-08-2020 2/4 Before this Court two-fold submissions were made: (1) constitutional validity of Section 234E of Income Tax Act, 1961 is challenged; (2) Initiation of proceedings under Section 200A of Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law. On 1st issue, we do not find petitioner having made out any case, for it cannot be said that statute which reads as under:- 234E. Fee for default in furnishing statements. (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 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." was passed by Legislature not having competence to do so or, Patna High Court CWJC No.10887 of 2014 dt.20-08-2020 3/4 in any way, offending Part-III of Constitution of India. Further, we find issue to have been put at rest, squarely covered by three different courts in Country. Reference in this connection may be made:- (2015) 373 ITR 0268 (Bom), Rashmikant Kundailia and another v. Union of India; (2015) 235 Taxman 0410 (P &H), Dr. Amrit Lal Mangal v. Union of India; (2019) 413 ITR 0092 (Delhi), Biswajit Das v. Union of India & Ors. On 2nd issue, learned counsel fairly states that there is statutory remedy available with petitioner which he is ready to take recourse to in accordance with law. However, issue of limitation may not come in way of petitioner. This apprehension of petitioner, perhaps, is not well-founded for simple reason that he has been pursuing matter before this Court. Also, Mrs. Archana Sinha states that if petitioner were to take recourse to such statutory remedy within period of 30 days from today, issue of limitation shall not come in way nor raised in such proceedings, which shall be dealt with on merits, in accordance with law. We clarify that issue of limitation shall not come in way of petitioner, if such proceedings are initiated Patna High Court CWJC No.10887 of 2014 dt.20-08-2020 4/4 within period of 30 days from today. With aforesaid observation, petition is disposed of. Interlocutory application, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( S. Kumar, J) K.C.Jha/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 26.08.2020 Transmission Date Ajit Kumar Singh v. Union of India, New Delhi/ Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi/ CIT TDS, Patna/ CIT, Patna/ DCIT Centralized Processing Cell TDS, Ghaziabad