Sri Nav Visw Ratna Industries Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
Summary: The Madras High Court considered a writ petition challenging an order imposing both late fee and penalty for non-filing of annual returns. The petitioner, M/s.Sri Nav Visw Ratna Industries, challenged the Form DRC-07 reference and detailed order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Washermenpet Assessment Circle, in relation to GSTIN 33ASBPM1823C1ZF/2020-21. The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in M/s.Kandan Hardware Mart rep. By its Proprietor E.Palani vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Park Town Assessment Circle, Chennai – 600 003 [(2026) 38 Centax 332 (Mad.)], contending that general penalty cannot be imposed after imposing a late fee.
On examination of the impugned order, the Court noticed that late fee had been imposed for a delay of 995 days. The Court found no case for interfering with the imposition of late fee. However, following its position in Kandan Hardware, the Court held that general penalty under Section 125 of the applicable GST enactments could not be imposed after imposition of a late fee.
Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside only insofar as it pertained to imposition of penalty. The writ petition was disposed of on those terms, the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, and there was no order as to costs. The Court therefore left the late fee imposed for the 995-day delay undisturbed while removing the additional penalty.
Cases Discussed
- M/s.Kandan Hardware Mart rep. By its Proprietor E.Palani Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Park Town Assessment Circle, Chennai – 600 003 [(2026) 38 Centax 332 (Mad.)]
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An order imposing both late fee and penalty for non-filing of annual returns is assailed in this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court held in M/s. Kandan Hardware Mart rep. By its Proprietor E. Palani vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Park Town Assessment Circle, Chennai – 600 003 [(2026) 38 Centax 332 (Mad.)] that general penalty cannot be imposed after imposing a late fee.
3. On perusal of the impugned order, it is noticeable that late fee has been imposed for the period of delay of 995 days. No case is made out to interfere with the imposition of late fee. As regards penalty, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court held in Kandan Hardware that general penalty under Section 125 of the applicable GST enactments cannot be imposed after imposing a late fee. Following the said position, the impugned order is set aside only insofar as it pertains to imposition of penalty.
4. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
