General Penalty for Late Returns Upheld Even Without Section 47 Late Fee Imposition

By | January 10, 2026

General Penalty for Late Returns Upheld Even Without Section 47 Late Fee Imposition

 

Issue

Whether the imposition of a general penalty for late filing of GST returns is valid and sustainable even when the specific late fee prescribed under Section 47 of the GST Act has not been levied.


Facts

  • Assessment Period: The dispute pertains to the tax period 2019-2020.

  • Default: The assessee failed to file their GST returns within the prescribed due dates.

  • Penalty Imposed: The tax authorities imposed a general penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. 25,000/- under CGST and Rs. 25,000/- under SGST) for the non-compliance.

  • Observation: It was noted that despite the delay, no specific late fee under Section 47 of the respective GST enactments had been imposed on the assessee.

  • Legal Challenge: The assessee filed a writ petition on 23-10-2025 challenging the imposition of this general penalty.


Decision

  • Non-Interference: The Court held that the impugned order imposing a general penalty did not suffer from any infirmity requiring judicial interference.

  • Penalty Sustained: The fact that a specific late fee under Section 47 was not imposed did not invalidate the general penalty levied for the established default of late filing.

  • Outcome: The writ petition was dismissed, and the penalty order was upheld. [In favour of revenue]


Key Takeaways

  • General Penalty Scope: Authorities may impose a general penalty for procedural lapses (like late filing) under the GST Act, and this can stand independently even if the specific “late fee” under Section 47 is not separately charged in the order.

  • Compliance is Mandatory: The absence of a specific late fee levy does not absolve the taxpayer of liability for non-compliance; the general penalty provisions can still be invoked to penalize the delay.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Palani Ilanthirayan
v.
Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tamil Nadu*
C.Saravanan, J.
W.P. No. 40053 of 2025
W.M.P. Nos. 45001, 45005, 45006 and 45007 of 2025
DECEMBER  4, 2025
Ms. K.Kumudham Barathi for the Petitioner. Ms. Amirtha Poonkodi Dinakaran, Government Adv. for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged separate orders passed by the respondents under Section 73 and 74 of the respective GST enactments for the tax period 2019-2020, as detailed below:-
PAYMENT CHART
S.No.SCN DATEREPLY BY PETITIONERIMPUGNED ORDER DATEDEMAND RAISEDDEMAND PAID
1.05.08.202307.09.2023, 27.09.2023 and 15.12.202328.08.2024Rs.50,000/-(as penalty). No tax demandInterest paid
2.27.05.2024No Reply24.08.2024Rs.3,00,882/- as tax demandRs.3,00,882/-(100% tax demand paid)
3.28.05.2024No Reply22.08.2024Rs.42,765/- (as interest). No tax demandNil
4.23.05.2024No Reply28.08.2024Rs.3,19,530/- as tax demandNil

 

2. As far as the challenge to the order dated 28.08.2024 bearing ZD3308242615954 is concerned, the petitioner has been imposed a General Penalty of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.25,000/- each for CGST and SGST) for late filing of GST returns. However, it is noticed that no late fee under Section 47 of the respective GST enactments has been imposed on the petitioner in the aforesaid impugned order dated 28.08.2024. The present writ petition has been filed only on 23.10.2025.
3. The aforesaid impugned order dated 28.08.2024 imposing a General Penalty of Rs.50,000/-, without the imposition of late fees under Section 47 of the respective GST enactments does not merit any interference. Therefore, challenge to the aforesaid impugned order dated 28.08.2024 has to fail. This writ petition, to that extent, is liable to be dismissed.
4. As far as the challenge to the remaining three assessment orders dated 22.08.2024, 24.08.2024 and 28.08.2024 bearing ZD3308242626919, and are concerned, it is noticed that the petitioner did not respond to the respective Show Cause Notices in DRC – 01 by filing a reply that preceded the respective impugned orders mentioned above and thus suffered the respective impugned orders.
5. Since the aforesaid impugned orders were all passed in the year 2024, the petitioner is willing to pay 50% of the disputed tax as confirmed in the respective impugned assessment orders (Serial Nos.2 to 4 in the above table) and submits that the cases be remitted back.
6. Recording the same, the aforesaid impugned assessment orders dated 22.08.2024, 24.08.2024 and 28.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the respective GST enactments are quashed. The cases are remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits, subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax in respect of the tax demand confirmed vide aforesaid impugned orders dated 28.08.2024 and 24.08.2024, as well as the demand interest confirmed in the impugned order dated 22.08.2024.
7. It is the contention of the petitioner that the entire tax demand as confirmed vide impugned order dated 24.08.2024 has already been recovered and paid by the petitioner.
8. In case, the tax demand has indeed been recovered and paid by the petitioner, the petitioner shall not be required to make any further pre-deposit for the purpose of de novo proceedings insofar as the impugned order dated 24.08.2024 is concerned.
9. Within such time, the Petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 27.05.2024 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned Orders dated 22.08.2024, 24.08.2024 and 28.08.2024 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 27.05.2024.
10. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed and partly dismissed.
(i)the challenge to the assessment order dated 28.08.2024 bearing ZD3308242615954 is dismissed.
(ii)the remaining impugned orders at Serial Nos. 2 to 4 in the above table are disposed of by way of remand, subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax.
(iii)To the extent the tax demand already been recovered, the same shall be adjusted towards the pre-deposit as ordered above and no further pre-deposit is required, if the entire tax demand is already recovered.
(iv)The attachment of the petitioner’s bank account shall be lifted, subject to the petitioner complying with the above stipulation and the petitioner not in arrears of any other amount towards the tax demand for other financial years.
(v)In case the Petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the Respondent shall proceed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months of such reply/pre-deposit. Subject to the Petitioner complying with the above stipulations, the attachment of the bank account of the Petitioner shall also stand automatically raised/vacated.
(vi). In case the Petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations, the Respondent is at liberty to proceed against the Petitioner to recover the tax in accordance with law as if this Writ Petition was dismissed in limine today.
No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Category: GST

About CA Satbir Singh

Chartered Accountant having 12+ years of Experience in Taxation , Finance and GST related matters and can be reached at Email : Taxheal@gmail.com