Tvl R.P.G. Traders vs. State Tax Officer & Anr.
Facts:
The petitioner failed to file the annual return under Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu GST Act for the relevant period. The State Tax Officer passed an order dated 26.02.2025 levying late fee of ₹75,025 under CGST and ₹75,025 under SGST (₹1,50,050 total) under Section 47 and additionally imposed general penalty of ₹50,000 under Section 125. The petitioner challenged the order contending that once late fee is levied under Section 47, general penalty under Section 125 cannot be imposed and that the calculation of late fee was incorrect.
Court Decision:
The High Court held that Section 125 provides for general penalty only where no specific penalty is prescribed under the Act. Since the petitioner had already been subjected to late fee under Section 47 for failure to file the return, the levy of additional general penalty under Section 125 was not permissible. Accordingly, the general penalty of ₹50,000 was set aside.
With respect to the late fee, the Court held that the authority had incorrectly calculated the amount by duplicating it for CGST and SGST. The Court modified the late fee and directed that the petitioner shall pay ₹37,512.50 under SGST and ₹37,512.50 under CGST, totalling ₹75,025. Upon payment of the modified late fee, the bank was directed to permit the petitioner to operate the bank account which had been frozen.
Cases Referred by Court:
- Order in W.P. No. 36614 of 2024, dated 04.02.2025 (Madras High Court).
Other Case Law
Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs Union Of India And Anr,
Whether the seat of Parliament or a State Legislature constitutes a relevant factor for determining the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutionality
BackgroundThe appellant, a company with its registered office at Mumbai, had ava...
Read MoreNational Plasto Moulding The State of Assam & Ors.
Constitutional validity of Sections 16(2)(c) and 16(2)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — whether Input Tax Credit (ITC) can be denied to a bona fide purchasing dealer on account of the fa
BackgroundA batch of writ petitions was filed by multiple registered dealers bef...
Read MoreKing Enterprises vs. Union of India & Ors.
Validity of "negative blocking" of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017, i.e., blocking ITC in excess of the actual credit balance available in the Electronic Credit Ledger.
Background & Relevant FactsThe petitioner, King Enterprises, challenged an o...
Read More