High Court of Madras
Tvl. New Shivsakthi Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
For revenue
W.A.(MD) NO. 956 OF 2026
High Court of Madras
W.A.(MD) NO. 956 OF 2026
Where registered person failed to file annual return for period in dispute and was levied late fee, mere non- issuance of notice in Form GSTR-3A or non-adherence to SOP Circular did not nullify statutory obligation to file returns within prescribed schedule, thus imposition of late fee for non-filing of return was sustained and dismissal of writ appeal was upheld
Section 47, read with sections 44 and 46, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 68 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.
Members
The background, the issue before the court and the reasoning behind the decision are free for members — along with the professional discussion on this ruling.
Free to join. No card required.
Already a member? Sign in
Madras High Court
Where petitioner failed to furnish annual return in Form GSTR-9 by due date, statutory late fee under section 47 was attracted, as it applies to both belated filing and non-filing, making the imposition of late fee and penalty valid and argument that late fee is not leviable for non-filing, untenable. GST: Where taxpayer failed to furnish annual return in Form GSTR-9 and was levied both late fee and general penalty, since no separate penalty was prescribed for such non-filing, general penalty under section 125 was applicable in addition to late fee, so levy of both was justified and challenge by taxpayer was rejected
GSTAT Hyderabad
Where assessee's registration was cancelled due to non-filing of GSTR-3B for six months and, upon filing all pending returns and taxes, revocation was allowed, FAA erred by not mandating recovery of interest, late fee and penalty, so penalty was imposed and revenue permitted to collect all ancillary dues in compliance with Rule 23(1)
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner filed returns for months September 2018 to March 2019 within extended deadline permitted by Section 16(5), denial of Input Tax Credit solely on ground of limitation under Section 16(4) was unsustainable, and petitioner remained entitled to ITC subject to fulfilling other conditions, as interest liability for belated payment was not contested in proceedings