General Penalty u/s 125 Invalid for Delayed GST Return Filing | HC
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 3 June, 2026

Case Details: Caussa Tec Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) - [2026] 186 taxmann.com 1220 (Madras)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- C. Saravanan, J.
-
Ali Hassan Khan for the Petitioner.
-
C. Harsharaj, Special Govt. Pleader for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was issued a show cause notice (SCN) in Form DRC-01 proposing levy of late fee and imposition of general penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act and the corresponding provisions of the Tamil Nadu GST Act for alleged delayed filing of returns. Despite the notice, no response or appearance was recorded before the jurisdictional officer under the State GST administration, and an order was passed confirming the proposals made in the notice. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner challenged the imposition of general penalty under Section 125 while the levy of late fee for delayed filing of returns was not in dispute. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the imposition of general penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act was unsustainable where a specific statutory mechanism in the form of late fee under Section 47 of the CGST Act already governed delayed filing of returns. It held that Section 125 operates as a residual penalty provision and can be invoked only in cases where no other specific penalty or statutory levy exists for the default in question. The Court further held that since late fee was specifically leviable for delay in filing returns, invocation of general penalty under Section 125 amounted to impermissible duplication of statutory levy. Accordingly, the Court set aside the imposition of general penalty while upholding the liability to pay late fee and partly allowed the writ petition to that extent.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Kandan Hardware Mart v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) (FAC) [2026] 182 taxmann.com 632/114 GST 267 (Madras) (para 4) followed
List of Cases Referred to
- Kandan Hardware Mart v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) (FAC) [2026] 182 taxmann.com 632/114 GST 267 (Madras) (para 4).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied

CA | CS | CMA