News Update

Global Debt & Fiscal Silhouette rising! Do Elections contribute to fiscal slippages?ISRO study reveals possibility of water ice in polar cratersGST - Statutory requirement to carry the necessary documents should not be made redundant - Mistake committed by appellant is not extending e-way bill after the expiry, despite such liberty being granted under the Rules attracts penalty: HCBiden says migration has been good for US economyGST - Tax paid under wrong head of IGST instead of CGST/SGST - 'Relevant Date' for refund would be the date when tax is paid under the correct head: HCUS says NO to Rafah operation unless humanitarian plan is in place + Colombia snaps off ties with IsraelGST - Petitioner was given no opportunity to object to retrospective cancellation of registration - Order is also bereft of any details: HCMay Day protests in Paris & Istanbul; hundreds arrestedGST - Proper officer should have at least considered the reply on merits before forming an opinion - Ex facie, proper officer has not applied his mind: HCSaudi fitness instructor jailed for social media post - Amnesty International seeks releaseGST - A Rs.17.90 crores demand confirmed on Kendriya Bhandar by observing that reply is insufficient - Non-application of mind is clearly written all over the order: HCDelhi HC orders DGCA to deregister GO First’s aircraftGST - Neither the SCN nor the order spell the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, therefore, they are set aside: HCIndia successfully tests SMART anti-submarine missile-assisted torpedo systemST - Appellant was performing statutory functions as mandated by EPF & MP Act, and the Constitution of India, as per Board's Circular 96/7/2007-ST , services provided under Statutory obligations are not taxable: CESTATKiller heatwave kills hundreds of thousands of fish in Southern VietnamI-T - Scrutiny assessment order cannot be assailed where assessee confuses it with order passed pursuant to invocation of revisionary power u/s 263: HCHong Kong struck by close to 1000 lightningI-T - Assessment order invalidated where passed in rushed manner to avoid being hit by impending end of limitation period: HCColumbia Univ campus turns into ‘American Gaza’ - Pro-Palestinian students & counter-protesters clashI-T - Additions framed on account of bogus purchases merits being restricted to profit element embedded therein, where AO has not doubted sales made out of such purchases: HCIndia to host prestigious 46th Antarctic Treaty Consultative MeetingI-T - Miscellaneous Application before ITAT delayed by 1279 days without any just causes or bona fide; no relief for assessee: HCAdani Port & SEZ secures AAA RatingI-T - Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54EC on account of investment made in REC Bonds, provided both investments were made within period of six months as prescribed u/s 54EC: ITATNominations for Padma Awards 2025 beginsI-T - PCIT cannot invoke revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 when there is no case of lack of enquiry or adequate enquiry on part of AO: ITATMissile-Assisted Release of Torpedo system successfully flight-tested by DRDOI-T - If purchases & corresponding sales were duly matched, it cannot be said that same were made out of disclosed sources of income: ITATViksit Bharat @2047: Taxes form the BedrockI-T - Reopening of assessment is invalid as while recording reasons for reopening of assessment, AO has not thoroughly examined materials available in his own record : ITAT
 
VAT - Railways are statutorily obliged to ensure timely TDS deduction; penalty reduced on account of bona fide reasons explaining delay: HC

 

By TIOL News Service

ALLAHABAD, FEB 20, 2019: THE issue before the High Court was whether the existence of mens rea is not a prerequisite for imposing penalty u/s 34(8) of the UPVAT Act and so bona fide reasons explaining delay in depositing TDS must be considered, before deciding as to whether or not to impose penalty. YES is the verdict. Nonetheless, the Bench also held that the quantum of penalty imposed for late deduction of TDS, merits being reduced, if the delay ranges from 24-94 days & where the defaulter is a Government Department.

Facts of the case

THE petitioner herein is the Assistant Material Manager, Rail Electrification under the Indian Railways. It is registered under the VAT Act for the relevant AY & it used to deposit TDS deducted by it on payments made in relation to works contracts. The TDS for five months in the relevant AY, was deposited after a delay of 94, 63, 55, 24 and 39 days respectively. Such delay was attributed to officials being busy in inspection & on account of staff shortages. On account of such delayed deposit of TDS, penalty of 200% of the TDS, amounting to about Rs 61.65 lakhs was imposed, u/s 34(8) of the Act. Of such amount, the petitioner claimed to have deposited about Ts 15.41 lakhs as well as 25% of the penalty imposed. Besides, the interest u/s 34(9) on such delayed deposit of TDS, was deposited after the date of passing the penalty order. The petitioner's appeal against such order was rejected by the Additional Commissioner. On further appeal, the Commercial Tax Tribunal reduced the quantum of the penalty to about Rs 3.08 lakhs, being 10% of the TDS amount. Hence the present petition for revision.

On hearing the revision, the High Court held that,

++ from a perusal of the provisions of Section 34(8), it is seen that any person responsible for making deduction of TDS if he fails to make the deduction or after making deduction fails to deposit the amount so deducted as required by Sub-section 6, the Assessing Authority may, after giving to such person an opportunity of being heard, by order in writing, direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum not exceeding twice the amount deductible under this section but not so deducted and, if deducted, not so deposited into the Government Treasury. The imposition of penalty under Section 34(8) is in addition to and unaffected by the payment of interest under Section 34(8);

++ though the existence of mens rea or dishonest intent is not a prerequisite for imposition of penalty under Section 34(8) as is evident from a bare reading of the provisions and it is a civil liability, if there are bona fide reasons and mitigating factors which explain the delayed deposit of TDS they should be taken into account while taking a decision to impose or not to impose penalty or to determine its extent. Failure to make deduction would however stand on a different footing;

++ the delay in deposit of TDS for April, May, July, August and October, 2008 ranges from 24 days to 94 days. The Railways should have been conscious of its statutory obligations. Considering the fact that it is not a case of failure to make deduction but of failure to deposit TDS timely and also considering the fact that the matter relates to a Government Department, in the facts of the case, the penalty is reduced from Rs 3,08,296.40/- to Rs 1541248 i.e. 05% of the TDS. This will act as a deterrent for the future.

(See 2019-TIOL-392-HC-ALL-VAT)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.