Tvl. New Shivsakthi Traders Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court heard a writ appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.08.2026, whereby the writ petition against an assessment order dated 17.04.2025 passed under Section 73(1) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period between 2020 and 2022, had been dismissed.
Before the writ Court, the appellant contended that the impugned proceedings were initiated without issuing a notice in Form GSTR-3A under Section 46 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 68 of the Goods and Services Tax Rules. The appellant also relied upon paragraph 4 of Circular No.129/19-GST dated 24.12.2019 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, contending that the amounts imposed towards late fee under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act were liable to be interfered with.
The learned Single Judge observed that the dispute related to the assessment year 2021-2022 and that the appellant had not filed the return within a period of three years. The Single Judge held that even if a notice in Form GSTR-3A had been issued under Rule 68, the appellant would nevertheless be liable to pay the late fee under Section 47(2) of the Act. It was noted that a registered person who fails to furnish the return required under Section 44 by the due date is liable to pay a late fee of ₹100 per day during the period of default, subject to the prescribed maximum linked to the turnover in the State or Union Territory. On that basis, the writ petition was dismissed.
In the writ appeal, the appellant submitted that the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for filing returns under Section 39 required system-generated emails or messages to be sent three days before the due date and immediately after the due date to registered persons who had failed to file returns. It was contended that the prescribed SOP had not been followed before issuance of the notice and, therefore, the appellant should not be made liable to pay the late fee.
The respondent submitted that the statutory obligation to file GST returns within the prescribed time rested upon the taxpayer. It was argued that the SOP merely provided a reminder facility to taxpayers and did not possess statutory force. The respondent further submitted that the impugned assessment order recorded that due notice dated 06.12.2024 had been served on the appellant and that, despite such notice, the appellant had failed to file the returns within the stipulated period. It was also pointed out that the assessment order was appealable and that the appellant had approached the High Court without availing the statutory appellate remedy. The respondent additionally submitted that although there had earlier been a restriction on filing GST returns after three years, a window had since been opened permitting assessees to file returns even after the expiry of three years.
The Division Bench held that a statutory mandate is cast upon every taxpayer to file returns within the prescribed time schedule. It found that the learned Single Judge had correctly concluded that the appellant had not filed the returns within the statutory period and was therefore liable to pay the late fee. The Court found no merit in the writ appeal.
At the request of the appellant, the High Court granted liberty to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Act within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Accordingly, the writ appeal was dismissed. However, liberty was granted to the appellant to file an appeal under Section 107 within the stipulated period. No order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 20.08.2026 passed in W.P.(MD).No.22746 of 2025, in which , the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 passed under Section 73(1) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period between 2000 — 2022.
2. Before the writ Court the appellant had contended that the impugned show cause notice has been issued without issuance of notice in Form GSTR 3A under Section 46 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 68 of the Goods and Service Tax Rules and in violation of paragraph 4 of the Circular No.129/19-GST dated 24.12.2019 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, and therefore, the amounts imposed towards late fee of the respective Tamil Nadu Goods and Service thereby, liable to be interfered with.
3. The learned Single Judge finding that the dispute pertains to the assessment year 2021 – 2022 and finding that the petitioner has not come forward to file the return within a period of 3 years and that even if notice in GSTR 3 was issued to the petitioner to file a return in GSTR 3A as per Rule 68 of the respective Goods and Service Tax Rules, the petitioner would still be liable to pay the late fee under Section 47(2) of the Act, and that any registered person who fails to furnish the return required under Section 44 of the Act by the due date shall be liable to pay a late fee of Rs.100/- for everyday during which such failure continues subject to a maximum of an amount calculated at the quarter percent of his turnover in the State or Union territory, had dismissed the writ petition. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/ petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as per the standard operating procedure (SOP) to be followed in case of filing of return under Section 39, a system generated mail/message would be sent to all the registered persons three days before the due date to nudge them about filing of the return for the tax period by the due date and once the due date for furnishing the return under section 39 is over, a system generated mail/message would be sent to all the defaulters, immediately after the due date to the effect that the said registered person has not furnished his return for the said tax period. Whereas, the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) has not been followed before issuance of notice and thereby, the appellant is not liable to pay the late fees.
5. Per contra, Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu appearing for the respondent would submit that as a taxpayer, a mandate is cast on the appellant to file the tax returns within the stipulated period. The SOP was only a facility extended to the taxpayers to remind them of the period. It does not have any statutory force and as per the impugned order, dated 17.04.2025, which was under challenge in the writ petition, due notice dated 06.12.2024 was served on the appellant/petitioner and despite the same, the appellant/petitioner has not filed the returns within the specified period. He would further submit that the impugned order is also appealable and without filing an appeal, the appellant/petitioner has approached this Court by filing the writ petition.
6. He would also further submit that though previously there was a bar for filing GST returns on expiry of 3 years, a window has been opened permitting the assesses to file the returns even after the lapse of 3 years.
7. Mandate is cast upon the taxpayer to file the returns within the time schedule. The learned Single Judge rightly finding that the returns have not been filed within the statutory period and thereby the assessee is liable to pay late fee had dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any merit in this writ appeal.
8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed that liberty may be granted to the assessee to file an appeal within a period of 30 days.
9. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the appellant/petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Act, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
