Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
5 rulings found
Madras High Court
Where petitioner was subjected to late fee and general penalty for delayed filing of annual returns, imposition of late fee for delay of 712 days was sustained, however general penalty under section 125 could not be imposed after levy of late fee in view of Ms. Kandan Hardware Mart v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) (FAC) [2026] aside to extent of penalty
Uttarakhand High Court
Where vehicle carrying aluminium roofing sheets was intercepted and discrepancy of truncated e-way bill numbers in invoices was explained as clerical error, with goods found matching declared documents and no evasion or undue benefit shown, penalty order under Section 129 could not be sustained and refund directed after applicable deduction as per circular dated 14 September 2018
Madras High Court
Where both statutory late fee and general penalty were imposed for same delayed filing of returns, once specific late fee was prescribed and levied under law, imposition of general penalty for identical default was unwarranted and penalty orders were to be set aside while late fee remained intact
Madras High Court
Where statute prescribed late fee for delayed annual return, separate general penalty for same default was impermissible; late fee for 995-day delay was to be upheld, but penalty component was to be set aside as it would result in duplication of statutory consequence
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