The Madras High Court has set aside the general penalty levied under Section 125 of the GST enactments on Tvl. Platinum Marketing stated that the penalty could not be sustained when a late fee had already been paid under a concessional notification for the delayed submission of annual returns.
The bench Justice C. Saravanan has cited that once the late fee u/s 47(2), which is penal in nature, has been levied and filed (including at a concessional rate under government notifications), no scope is there for additionally levying a general penalty u/s 125 of the GST enactments for the same default.
The order of Assistant Commissioner (ST), Avadi Assessment Circle, has been contested by a representative of the applicant, Mr Abdul Rahman, validating the proposal in a SCN on January 6, 2023, for the tax period 2018-19.
The department has levied a general penalty of 50,000 (25,000 each under CGST and SGST) u/s 125 of the respective GST enactments, and a late fee u/s 47 for not submitting the Annual Return in GSTR-9 / GSTR-9C within the statutory deadline.
The proposal of the late fee was refused after the applicant had chosen to file a concessional late fee of 20,000 (10,000 each under CGST and SGST) as per Notification No. 7/2023 Central Tax dated March 31, 2023, as revised through Notification No. 25/2023 Central Tax dated July 17, 2023.
The issue before the Court was limited to the validity of the general penalty imposed u/s 125.
Read Also: How GST Software Resolves GSTR-3B & 2A/2B ITC Mismatches
The Court mentioned that the problem was no longer res integra and was squarely covered by its earlier batch decision in Ms Kandan Hardware Mart vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST), decided on January 2, 2026.
The earlier judgment clearly stated that imposing dual penal consequences for the same issue, specifically, the late filing of an annual return, would not be permissible.
Applying the principle established in Kandan Hardware Mart, Justice Saravanan noted that the current writ petition specifically challenged the imposition of a general penalty.
Given the established legal position, the Court quashed the contested order regarding the levying of a general penalty u/s 125, while allowing the liability for the concessional late fee to remain intact.
As a result, the writ petition was granted, providing relief to the applicant. No costs were awarded, and the related miscellaneous petitions were closed.
| Case Title | Tvl. Platinum Marketing vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) FAC |
| Case No. | W.P.No.3913 of 2026 W.M.P.Nos.4337 and 4339 of 2026 |
| For Petitioner | Mr.Adithya Reddy |
| For Respondent | Mr.C.Harsharaj Special Government Pleader |
| Madras High Court | Read Order |
