Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1833
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Tvl.Madhu Agencies Represented by its Proprietrix G.Valliammai - Petitioner
Versus
The State Tax Officer, Woraiyur Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings,
Trichy – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.7794 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD)No.6375 of 2026
Decided On : 16-04-2026
Important Points
Subject
Taxation Law - Goods and Services Tax
Act Referred
TAMIL NADU GOODS AND SERVICES TAX RULES: R.44(1), R.44(2), R.80, R.80(3)
Headnote
(B) Statutory Interpretation - Use of "includes" in legal provisions - The word "includes" generally serves to expand the scope of a defined term - The legislative intent behind incorporating the reconciliation statement within the return framework is to ensure comprehensive data reporting - Taxing statutes must be interpreted to give effect to the mandatory nature of filing requirements. (Paras 18, 19 and 21)
Facts of the case:
A taxpayer challenged an assessment order levying a late fee for the delay in filing an annual reconciliation statement, despite having already paid a late fee for the delayed main annual return. The taxpayer contended that the statutory levy of late fees was restricted to the main return and did not extend to the reconciliation statement, which they argued was only a secondary requirement.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the legislative scheme integrates the reconciliation statement as a fundamental component of the annual return. An annual return filed without the required reconciliation statement is deemed incomplete, thereby failing to satisfy the mandatory filing requirements within the stipulated deadline and triggering the relevant penalty provisions.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the statutory provision for late fees regarding the delayed filing of an annual return applies to the failure to submit a mandatory reconciliation statement within the prescribed timeframe.
Ratio Decidendi: The statute mandates the filing of an annual return, which includes a self-certified reconciliation statement for entities meeting specific turnover criteria. Because the reconciliation statement is an integral part of the return, the failure to submit both simultaneously renders the filing non-compliant, justifying the imposition of late fees for the duration of the failure.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.N.Sudalai Muthu
For the Respondent: Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disputed levy of late fee for delayed filing of form gstr-9c. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. contention on whether gstr-9c non-filing attracts penalty under gst law. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. legislative evolution of section 44 and rule 80 regarding annual returns. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. interpretation of gstr-9c as a mandatory integral component of returns. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. dismissal of writ petition with liberty to pursue statutory appeal. (Para 22) |
ORDER :
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Whether a late fee can be levied under Section 47 of the Central/ TAMIL NADU GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT , 2017 for non-filing of Form GSTR-9-C within time is the question raised in the instant writ petition.
2. The writ petition challenges the impugned order of assessment dated 04.12.2025, passed under Section 73 of the TAMIL NADU GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT , 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ''the TNGST Act, 2017''), under which the petitioner has been directed to pay a late fee of Rs.84,700/- for SGST and Rs.84,700/- for CGST, totalling Rs.1,69,400/- for belated filing of the reconciliation statement in Form 9-C.
3. The impugned order rests on the fact that, for the Assessment Year 2021–2022, the deadline for filing the annual return in Form GSTR-9 was 31.12.2022. The petitioner filed the return late on 13.01.2023, a delay of 13 days. The petitioner does not contest this delay and has, in fact, paid the applicable late fee.
4. However, since the petitioner’s turnover exceeded Rs.5 crores, a reconciliation statement in Form GSTR-9C was required to be filed along with the annual return. The petitioner failed to do so and filed it belatedly only on 09.05.2025. Treating the date of filing of Form GSTR-9C as the date of proper filing of the annual return in Form GSTR-9, the respondent has calculated the delay and levied the late fee.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that, under Section 47 of the TNGST Act, 2017, the late fee is only applicable for delays in filing the annual return in Form -9. Since the return was filed 13 days late, for which the late fee has already been paid, it cannot be extended to cover the delay in filing the reconciliation statement. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable.
6. It is contended that the requirement to file a reconciliation statement is not mandatory as per Section 44 . It is only under Rule 80 (3) of the TAMIL NADU GOODS AND SERVICES TAX RULES , 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ''the TNGST Rules, 2017) that it is made mandatory for persons with a turnover of Rupees Five Crores and above. Section 47 also does not cover violations of the Rules.
7. It is further argued that since the assessment is for the year 2020-2021, the amnesty granted for filing the annual return in Form-9 by waiving the penalty above Rs.10,000/- should be taken into account, and a higher penalty need not be levied for Form GSTR 9-C.
8. Mr.N.Sudalai Muthu, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Anishia Chandrakanth Vs. Superindentent, Central Tax & Central Excise, (2024) 162 taxmann.com 115 (Kerala) : 2024:KER:27620 in support of his submission.
9. Per contra, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, submitted that Section 44 of the Act was substituted by Act 13 of 2021, with effect from 01.08.2021. Consequently, Rule 80 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 was also amended, and sub-rule (3) was introduced with effect from 01.08.2021. The said Rule mandates the filing of a reconciliation statement along with the annual return. Section 47 imposes a late fee for non-filing of returns as required under Section 44 . Since the petitioner failed to furnish the reconciliation statement within the stipulated time, the levy of a late fee is justified. Even with reference to the amnesty, the petitioner failed to avail of it by not filing Form GSTR-9-C within the period
