SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 38984

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.SARAVANAN, J
Selvi Oil Stores – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner (ST) – Respondent
W.M.P.Nos.14593 & 14594 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Rajasekar
For the Respondents:Ms.Amirtha Poonkodi Dinakaran Government Advocate

General penalty under S.125 inapplicable where late fee under S.47 imposed for delayed GSTR-9; waiver per amnesty notifications.

Headnote:Under GST enactments, Section 44 mandates filing of annual returns in Form GSTR-9, with late fee under Section 47(2) for delays. Petitioner challenged assessment order imposing late fee and general penalty under Section 125 for delayed GSTR-9 for 2019-2020. Court found prior decision applicable, holding general penalty inapplicable where late fee imposed; waiver extended per Notifications No.7/2023-Central Tax and 25/2023-Central Tax for returns filed before 01.04.2023. Issue framed as entitlement to waiver of excess late fee and general penalty under Sections 47 and 125. Ratio: Himachal Pradesh High Court in analogous case ruled unjust to deny waiver to pre-notification filers; general penalty under Section 125 only absent specific penalties like late fee; petitioners liable only for capped late fee of Rs.10,000/-. Court followed this, remitting for fresh order. Writ petition disposed; matter remitted to respondent for fresh order in light of prior decision within three months. No costs.

Table of Content
1. challenged impugned gst order for delayed returns. (Para 2 , 3)
2. prior ruling applies waiving excess late fee, penalties. (Para 4)
3. remitted for fresh order per precedent; disposed. (Para 5)

ORDER

Ms.Amirtha Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondent.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the time of admission.

3. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Order dated 16.08.2024 passed by the respondent for the tax period 2019-

2020.

4. The issue in the present case is prima facie answered by this Court in Ms. Kandan Hardware Mart vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) vide order dated 02.01.2026 in W.P. Nos. 27029 of 2023 batch, wherein this Court concluded as under:

“205. The Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s.R.T.Pharma Vs. Union of India and others, while dealing with a similar issue arising out of delay in filing of the “Annual Returns” in GSTR-9 under Section 39 of the respective GST Enactments held that it would be unjust to deny a “Late Fee”, waiver to a taxpayer who filed their Goods and Services Tax (GST) Annual Returns (GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C) before a specific Amnesty Notification was issued in Notification No.7/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023, and was amended by Notification No.25/2023-Central Tax dated 17.07.2023

206. Therefore, the benefit of the above Notifications namely Notification No.7/2023- Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 as amended by Notification No.25/2023- Central tax dated 17.07.2023 has to be extended to all those Petitioners in Table – 4A who had filed the returns before 01.04.2023.

207. Since these Petitioners are liable to pay “Late Fee”

the question of imposing “General Penalty” under Section 125 of the respective GST Enactments cannot be countenanced in view of the reasons that “General Penalty” under Section 125 of the respective GST Enactments can be imposed only in the absence of ‘any other penalty’ under the respective GST Enactments.

208. It is therefore held that the Petitioners in Table-4A are neither liable for “Late Fee” over and above Rs.10,000/- under each of the respective GST Enactments nor liable for “General Penalty” under Section 125 of the respective GST Enactments.

209. As far as the case of Petitioners in Table-4B namely the Petitioners in W.P.No.19967 of 2023 and W.P.Nos.23356, 30854, 9867 of 2024 and W.P.Nos.47726, 38007, 48941 of 2025 are concerned, they have been subjected to only “Late Fee” under Section 47(2) of the respective GST Enactments. They have not been subjected to “General Penalty” under Section 125 of the respective GST Enactments.

210. Since these Petitioners have also filed the “Annual Returns” before 01.04.2023, they cannot be subjected to “Late Fee” over and above Rs.10,000/- under each of the respective GST Enactments as ordered in the case of those Petitioners in Table-4A

211. As far as the case of Petitioner in Table-4C namely the Petitioner in W.P.No.3915 of 2024 is concerned, the said Petitioner has filed the “Annual Return” only on 19.01.2024 for the Tax Period 2020-2021. It was within the time under Section 44(2) of the respective GST Enactments as the said date would have expired on 31.12.2024. However, there is no scope for granting any waiver from payment of “Late Fee” under section 47 of the respective GST Enactments, as it was long after the date specified in Section 44(1) of the respective GST Enactments read with Rule 80(1) of the respective GST Rules. The said Petitioner has been imposed with “General Penalty” of Rs.25,000/- each under Section 125 of the respective GST Enactments. There is no scope for imposing “General Penalty” under Section 125 of the respective GST Enactments for the reasons stated for the other Petitioners. Therefore, to that extent W.P.No.3915 of 2024 deserves to be allowed.

212. In the result, i. W.P.No

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top