Tvl Kpk Fuel Services v. State Tax Officer

ORDER An order dated 13.12.2023 imposing a late fee and penalty on the petitioner for failure to file the annual return in Form GSTR-9 is the subject of the challenge in this writ petition.

¶2Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Counsel (Tax), accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the time limit for filing an annual return for a financial year is three years from the due date of furnishing said annual return. As regards the Assessment Year 2017-2018, he submits that a notification was issued fixing the due date of 05.02.2026. Reckoning the three-year period therefrom, he submits that the three year period lapsed in February 2023. Adverting to the impugned order, learned counsel contends that it erroneously records that the taxpayer filed the return on

07.12.2022. He adds that a late fee may be levied only in respect of belated filing of a return, but not in respect of non-filing thereof.

¶4Sub-Section (2) of Section 47 of the Central Goods and Service Tax

(CGST) Act, 2017, governs the issue. The said provision is set out below: "Section 47 Levy of Late Fee.

(1) …….. Page3 of 6

(2) Any registered person who fails to furnish the return required under Section 44 by the due date shall be liable to pay a late fee of one hundred rupees for every day during which such failure continues subject to a maximum of an amount calculated at a quarter per cent. Of his turnover in the State or Union Territory."

¶5From the text of Sub-Section (2), it is evident that late fees is leviable on a registered person who fails to file the return by the due date. The said late fee is leviable at Rs.100 per day of default, subject to the maximum of not more than 0.25% of the turnover.

¶6Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the penalty under Section 125 of applicable GST enactments cannot be imposed after levying a late fee. Section 125 enables the imposition of penalty of up to Rs.25,000/- for contravention of any provisions of the applicable GST statutes or rules framed thereunder, provided no separate penalty is prescribed under the statute in respect thereof. On perusal of applicable statutes, no separate penalty is prescribed in respect of failure to file the annual return. Hence, the imposition of penalty is in order.

¶7Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is untenable and Section 47(2) enables the levy of late fee, if a taxpayer fails to file the Page4 of 6 return. In view thereof, there is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶8For the reasons aforesaid, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 02-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jeni Page5 of 6 To The State Tax officer Hosur North 2 Assessment Circle Office of the Assistant commissioner 2nd Floor, Commercial Taxes Building Hosur, Krishnagiri. WPoNo.o17421oofo2026 SENTHILKUMARoRAMAMOORTHY,oJ. Jeni WPoNo.o17421oofo2026 02-06-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and WMP Nos. 18680 & 18682 of 2026 Tvl.KPK Fuel Services Rep by its Proprietor Kuppan Kannan, 122/1, Bagalur Main Road, Berikai, Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu-635105 ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Tax officer Hosur North 2 Assessment Circle Office of the Assistant commissioner 2nd Floor, Commercial Taxes Building Hosur, Krishnagiri. ..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Respondent's order in GST DRC 07 dated 13.12.2023 bearing reference no. ZD331223085890F issued under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017 for the financial year 2017-18, quash the same. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Raghunandan Sriram For Respondent(s): Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran Government Counsel (Tax) Page2 of 6