Case Law Details
M A N S Nadar And Co. Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court considered a writ petition challenging an order dated 08.10.2025 passed under Section 62 of the GST Act, 2017.
The Court noted that the impugned order had been issued because the petitioner failed to file monthly GST returns on the GSTN portal within the prescribed time. During the hearing, the petitioner submitted that it was now prepared to file the pending monthly returns.
The respondents contended that there was no need to challenge the assessment order because, once the petitioner uploaded the pending returns, reassessment would automatically be carried out in accordance with Section 62(2) of the GST Act, 2017.
After considering the submissions and examining the records, the Court observed that the order had been passed under Section 62(1) of the Act due to the petitioner’s failure to file returns within the stipulated period. The Court further noted that the petitioner was now willing to furnish the returns. It also recorded that the petitioner was dealing with exempt goods, namely salt.
The Court held that, notwithstanding the nature of the goods dealt with by the petitioner, the petitioner was required to pay the applicable interest and late fee as contemplated under Section 62(2) of the GST Act. Upon filing of the returns and payment of the requisite interest and late fee, the matter would be considered by the appropriate authorities in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition while keeping open the petitioner’s liberty to furnish the pending returns as provided under Section 62(2) of the GST Act. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Petitioner Represented by: Mr.S.Muthu Kumar Raja
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 08.10.2025.
2. Heard Mr.S.Muthu Kumar Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents.
3. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, it is observed that the impugned order is an order passed under Section 62 of the GST Act, 2017, as the petitioner did not file the monthly returns on the GSTN portal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is now ready to file the monthly returns.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the impugned order need not be challenged, as once the monthly returns are uploaded, reassessment will automatically be carried out in accordance with Section 62(2) of the GST Act, 2017.
6. I have considered the rival submissions made by both sides and perused the material records of the case.
7. When the petitioner failed to file the returns within the stipulated time, an order was passed under Section 62(1) of the Act. Subsequently, now that the petitioner is willing to file the returns, even though it is true that the petitioner is dealing with exempt goods, namely salt, the petitioner is still required to pay the requisite interest and late fee as per Section 62(2) of the Act. Thereafter, the matter will be considered by the appropriate authorities in accordance with the law.
8. With the liberty to furnish the returns kept open to the petitioner, as mandated under Section 62(2) of the Act, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
