Madras High Court Directs Action Against Persons Involved In Advertising Legal Profession

The Madras High Court has held that the general penalty cannot be levied for late filing of GST returns in presence of specific penalty.

The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that a penalty was imposed in the form of late fee in terms of Section 47 of the GST Act. Therefore, the general penalty of Rs.50,000 towards CGST and SGST is not correct and is liable to be set aside. 

As per Section 47 of the TNGST Act, 2017 only late fee can be levied. The provision under Section 125 of the Act, will apply only in the case where no penalty is levied under Section 47 of the GSTN Act. No notice was issued as per Section 46 of the Act, however, penalty proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. 

When Section 47 of the GST Act is available, for levy of the late fee, in the event of filing the return belatedly, in the present case, notice has been issued under Section 47 r/w 73 of the GST Act and no notice can be issued in terms of Section 73 of the GST Act.

The petitioner has not challenged the late fee imposed upon them. Their contention is only to the extent that no notice was issued before issuing the show cause notice. Already a return has been filed, however, the petitioner has not filed their turnover. The respondent without properly communicating about the assessment proceedings, has straight away issued show cause notice under Section 73 of the GST Act. Section 73 of the Act pertains only to determination of tax and the same does not spell about non-filing of returns. 

The court held that as per Section 44 of the GST Act, there was delay in filing the annual return by the petitioner. In the event of delay in filing the annual return, late fee would be levied under Section 47(2) of the GST Act. 

Case Details

Case Title: Tvl.Jainsons Castors & Industrial Products Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Case No.: W.P.No.36614 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.39493 of 2024

Date: 04.02.2025

Counsel For Petitioner: M.Varun Pandian

Counsel For Respondent: C. Harsha Raj

Read More: IIFL Not Liable To Pay Service Tax On Delayed Payment Charges Collected Towards Credit Facilities: CESTAT

Mariya Paliwala
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

Interest On Delayed Refund Can’t Be Denied Due To Dispute Between State And Central GST Dept. : Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court in the case of  M/S Tata Aldesa (J.V.)…

Supply Of Solar Power Plant Components Along With Erection Is A ‘Composite Supply’: AAR

The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that the…
GST Weekly Flashback

GST Weekly Flashback: 26 January To 1 February 2025

GST Weekly Flashback for the period 26 January To 1 February 2025.…
Delhi High Court Directs Restoration Of GST Registration

Dept. Failed To Restore GST Registration Despite Appellate Authority’s Order: Delhi High Court Directs Restoration

The Delhi High Court while directing the restoration of GST registration held…