Sunil Ambwani, J.

1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Union of India as well as learned counsel for the Income Tax Department.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

“1. That Hon'ble Court may declare section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unconstitutional by issuing necessary directions to the respondents;

2. That alternatively it is prayed that benefit of Circular No.07/2014 dated March 04, 2014 F.No.275/27/2013-IT(B) issued by the Respondent No.2, wherein, Ex-post facto extended the due date for filing TDS/TCS statement for financial year 2012-13 and 2013-14 for Government deductors, may be extended to other deductors also;

3. That necessary direction may kindly be issued to the respondent No.3 to quash the demand raised in respect of all the petitioners as stated in Annexure 1 to Annexure 7.

4. That any other relief deemed beneficial be also awarded;”

3. The validity of Section 234E was challenged in the Bombay High Court. In Rashmikant Kundalia and ors. V/s Union of India & ors. ((2015) 229 Taxman 596 (Bom)) (Writ Petition No.771 of 2014) decided on 06.02.2015, the Bombay High Court has upheld the validity of Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the levy of fee of Rs.200/- per day on the late filing of the TDS returns, which is a duty cast on the person deducting TDS under section 200 of the Income Tax Act, is a compensatory fee, which is not in the nature of penalty. In paragraphs 12 to 15, the Bombay High Court held as follows:-

“12. On a perusal of sub-section (1) of section 234E, it is clear that a fee is sought to be levied inter alia on a person who fails to deliver or cause to be delivered the TDS return/statements within the prescribed time in sub-section (3) of section 200. The fee prescribed is Rs.200/-for every day during which the failure continues. Sub-section (2) further stipulates that the amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible as the case may be.

13. It is not in dispute that as per the existing provisions, a person responsible for deduction of tax (the deductor) is required to furnish periodical quarterly statements containing the details of deduction of tax made during the quarter, by the prescribed due date. Undoubtedly, delay in furnishing of TDS return/statements has a cascading effect. Under the Income Tax Act, there is an obligation on the Income Tax Department to process the income tax returns within the specified period from the date of filing. The Department cannot accurately process the return on whose behalf tax has been deducted (the deductee) until information of such deductions is furnished by the deductor within the prescribed time. The timely processing of returns is the bedrock of an efficient tax administration system. If the income tax returns, especially having refund claims, are not processed in a timely manner, then (i) a delay occurs in the granting of credit of TDS to the person on whose behalf tax is deducted (the deductee) and consequently leads to delay in issuing refunds to the deductee, or raising of infructuous demands against the deductee; (ii) the confidence of a general taxpayer on the tax administration is eroded; (iii) the late payment of refund affects the Government financially as the Government has to pay interest for delay in granting the refunds; and (iv) the delay in receipt of refunds results into a cash flow crunch, especially for business entities.

14. We find that the Legislature took note of the fact that a substantial number of deductors were not furnishing their TDS return/statements within the prescribed time frame which was absolutely essential. This led to an additional work burden upon the Department due to the fault of the deductor by not furnishing the information in time and which he was statutorily bound to furnish. It is in this light, and to compensate for the add