##PAGE1##

WP No. 9806 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN

WP No. 9806 of 2025

and

WMP.No.10996 of 2025

Kalanther Madeena Textiles

Represented by its Proprietor,

Kalanther Naina Mohamed,

Old No 73 New No 82, M C Road,

Old Washermenpet, Chennai

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Deputy Commissioner (CT)

O/o. The Deputy Commissioner (ST)

GST – Appeal, Chennai 1 Room No. 210

2nd Floor, C.T. Anexe Building,

No. 1 Greams Raod,

Chennai 600 006006.

2. The State Officer/ Commercial Tax Officer,

Royapuram Assessment Circle, No.32, Elephant

gate Bridge Road, Chennai 600 003.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for

issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the 2nd respondent

demand order made in No. ZD330223138901R dated 28.02.2023 and quash the

__________

Page1 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 01:17:38 pm )

WP No. 9806 of 2025

same and consequently direct the respondent to provide the benefit of

Notification No.08/2025 dated 23.01.2025 issued by the Ministry of Finance, to

the petitioner herein.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Suresh

For Respondent(s): M/s.P.Selvi

Government Advocate

ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order

dated 28.02.2023, whereby the petitioner was imposed with penalty under

Section 125 of the respective GST Enactments, 2017 and late fee under Section

47 of the respective GST Enactments, 2017 on account of the petitioner’s

failure to file a Annual return in Form GSTR-9 / Form GSTR-9C within a

prescribed period under Rule 80 of the respective GST rules for the Financial

year 2018-2019.

2. The aforesaid impugned order was preceded by a show cause notice in

DRC-01 dated 04.01.2023. However, the petitioner neither filed Annual return

of the Financial year 2018-2019 nor filed any reply the aforesaid Show Cause

Notice. Thus, the impugned order has been passed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government

Advocate appearing for the respondents.

__________

Page2 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 01:17:38 pm )

WP No. 9806 of 2025

2. Both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents

submitted that the issue is no longer res integra and is covered by the order of

this Hon’ble Court in Kandan Hardware Mart vs. The Assistant Commissioner

(ST)(FAC), rendered on 02.01.2026 in W.P.No.27029 of 2023 and batch cases.

The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

“190. In Tvl.Jainsons Casters and Industrial Products

referred to supra in W.P.No.36614 of 2024 rendered on

04.02.2025, this Court held that there is no scope for imposing

“General Penalty” under Section 125 of the respective GST

Enactment once “Late Fee” under Section 47 has been levied

under these Enactments. “Late Fee” though not described as a

“Penalty” is penal in nature; and the imposition of “Penalty”

consequence without any element of mens rea is unjustifiable. In

my view, there is no scope for levying both on a Registered

Person.

191. The Petitioners in Table-3 [W.P.Nos.3540, 3567, 3570,

3902, 3966 of 2024] and the Petitioner in Table-4B

[W.P.No.9867 of 2024] filed the “Annual Returns” under

Section 44(1) of the respective GST Enactments within the time

specified in the Notification No.7/2023-Central Tax dated

31.03.2023 as amended by Notification No.25/2023-Central tax

dated 17.07.2023

192. They have therefore been imposed with a lighter “Late

Fee” of Rs.10,000/- under each of the respective GST

Enactments in terms of the above Notification.

193. They are however questioning the imposition of “General

Penalty” under section 125 of the respective GST Enactments.

Since it has been already concluded that “Late Fee” under

Section 47(2) of the respective GST Enactments was penal in

nature, there cannot be imposition of “General Penalty” under

Section 125 of the respective GST Enactments over and above the

“Late Fee” levied at concessional rate under the above-

mention