##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.03.2026

CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN

W.P.No.12192 of 2026 and

W.M.P.Nos.13297 & 13298 of 2026 M/s.Malaysia Hardware

Represented by its Partner Mr.A.Mohamed Sultan, Old No.38, New No.75,

Post Office Street, Mannady,

Chennai - 600001.

..Petitioner Vs

The Assistant commissioner (ST)

Broadway Assessment circle No.32, Integrated Commercial Taxes Office

Complex Elephant Gate Bridge Road Vepery, Chennai – 600003.

..Respondent

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the Respondent in GSTIN:33AAAFM4806A1Z1/2019-2020, culminating in the Assessment Order dated 13.08.2024, passed under Section 73 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, bearing Reference No. ZD330824105471P, along with the consequential Form GST DRC-07 dated 13.08.2024, whereby the Respondent has levied a late fee and penalty for the alleged belated filing of the Annual Return in Form GSTR-9, and quash all the impugned proceedings as passed contrary to the provisions of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, and

against the principles of natural justice,

__________

Page1 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2026 04:01:33 pm )

For Petitioner : Mr.Samuel Rupesh Rajkumar

For Respondent : Mrs.P.Selvi, Government Advocate.

ORDER

Mrs.P.Selvi, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the

Respondent.

2. This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself

with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned

Government Advocate for the Respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent agreed that

the dispute in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Ms. Kandan Hardware Mart Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) in W.P. No. 27029 of 2023 vide order dated 02.01.2026. The operative portion

of the said order reads 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

__________

Page2 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2026 04:01:33 pm )

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 Pet