HC Upholds Penalty Under Section 125 Alongside Late Fee for Non-Filing of GSTR-9
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 15 June, 2026
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Tvl. KPK fuel services vs. State Tax Officer [2026] 187 taxmann.com 285 (Madras)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy, J.
- Raghunandan Sriram for the Petitioner.
- Ms Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, Govt. Counsel (Tax) for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner did not comply with the requirement to furnish the annual return in Form GSTR-9 within the prescribed time and was proceeded against. An order was passed imposing both late fee under Section 47 of the CGST Act and Tamil Nadu GST Act and general penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act for the said non-filing. The petitioner contended that the late fee under Section 47 was leviable only in cases of belated filing and not in cases of complete non-filing of returns. It further contended that imposition of penalty was impermissible where late fee had already been levied for the same default, and that both levies together amounted to an unsustainable duplication. The petitioner challenged the legality of the impugned order on these grounds. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that Section 47 of the CGST Act and Tamil Nadu GST Act clearly provide for the levy of a late fee where a registered person fails to furnish the return by the due date, and such a levy applies equally to cases of non-filing as well as belated filing. It further held that the statutory scheme does not exclude non-filing from the ambit of the late fee, and therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner was untenable. The Court also held that Section 125 operates as a general penalty provision and is attracted where no separate penalty is prescribed for a contravention of the Act or Rules. It was observed that no specific penal provision existed for failure to furnish the annual return in Form GSTR-9, thereby justifying the invocation of Section 125 in addition to Section 47. Accordingly, the Court upheld the impugned order and sustained both the late fee and penalty.
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
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
