Failure to Issue Form GSTR-3A Does Not Exempt Taxpayer From

Failure to Issue Form GSTR-3A Does Not Exempt Taxpayer From Late Fees For Delayed Annual Returns

Issue

Whether the non-issuance of a notice in Form GSTR-3A or non-compliance with SOP Circular No. 129/19-GST absolves a taxpayer from the statutory liability to pay late fees under Section 47 for delayed filing of an annual return.

Facts

Assessee Status: The appellant is a registered person under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Period of Dispute: The dispute pertains to the non-filing/delayed filing of the annual return for the financial year 2021–2022 (though misstated as 2000–2022 in the initial order).
Late Fee Imposed: The tax authority issued an order imposing a statutory late fee under Section 47 for failing to furnish the annual return within the prescribed time limit.
Appellant’s Defense: The appellant challenged the late fee on the grounds that no notice in Form GSTR-3A was issued under Section 46 and that the procedure laid down in SOP Circular No. 129/48/2019-GST was not followed.
Single Judge Ruling: The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, noting a continued default by the taxpayer exceeding three years.
Writ Appeal: The appellant filed a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench challenging the dismissal.

Decision

The Division Bench held that Section 44 creates a mandatory statutory obligation on every registered person to file an annual return within the prescribed schedule.
The liability to pay late fees under Section 47 arises automatically by operation of law upon the failure to furnish the return within the statutory timeline.
Non-issuance of a notice in Form GSTR-3A under Section 46 or procedural non-compliance with Circular No. 129/19-GST does not wipe out the statutory obligation or exempt the consequences of late fee.
The dismissal order passed by the Single Judge was affirmed, and the Writ Appeal was dismissed in favour of the Revenue.

Key Takeaways

Independent Statutory Obligation: The duty to file returns and the liability to pay late fees under Section 47 are statutory mandates that operate independently of administrative reminders or notices like GSTR-3A.
Non-Issuance of Notice Not a Defense: Form GSTR-3A is an administrative notice to non-filers, but its absence cannot be used as a shield by taxpayers to escape late fee liabilities for delayed filings.
Procedural Circulars Cannot Override Statute: Circulars and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) provide operational guidelines for authorities, but they do not negate or alter explicit statutory consequences prescribed under the GST Act.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Tvl. New Shivsakthi Traders

Assistant Commissioner (ST)

A.D.Jagadish Chandira and Ms. R. Poornima, JJ.

W.A.(MD) No. 956 of 2026
C.M.P. (MD) No. 8437 of 2026

JULY 8, 2026

S.Kannan for the Appellant. M.P. Senthil, Counsel for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.- This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 20.08.2026 passed in New Shivsakthi Traders v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) (Madras)/W.P.(MD).No.22746 of 2025, in which , the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 passed under Section 73(1) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period between 2000 – 2022.

2. Before the writ Court the appellant had contended that the impugned show cause notice has been issued without issuance of notice in Form GSTR 3A under Section 46 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 68 of the Goods and Service Tax Rules and in violation of paragraph 4 of the Circular No.129/19-GST dated 24.12.2019 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, and therefore, the amounts imposed towards late fee under Section 47(2) of the respective Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and thereby, liable to be interfered with.

3. The learned Single Judge finding that the dispute pertains to the assessment year 2021 – 2022 and finding that the petitioner has not come forward to file the return within a period of 3 years and that even if notice in GSTR 3 was issued to the petitioner to file a return in GSTR 3A as per Rule 68 of the respective Goods and Service Tax Rules, the petitioner would still be liable to pay the late fee under Section 47(2) of the Act, and that any registered person who fails to furnish the return required under Section 44 of the Act by the due date shall be liable to pay a late fee of Rs.100/- for everyday during which such failure continues subject to a maximum of an amount calculated at the quarter percent of his turnover in the State or Union territory, had dismissed the writ petition. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/ petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as per the standard operating procedure (SOP) to be followed in case of filing of return under Section 39, a system generated mail/message would be sent to all the registered persons three days before the due date to nudge them about filing of the return for the tax period by the due date and once the due date for furnishing the return under section 39 is over, a system generated mail/message would be sent to all the defaulters, immediately after the due date to the effect that the said registered person has not furnished his return for the said tax period. Whereas, the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) has not been followed before issuance of notice and thereby, the appellant is not liable to pay the late fees.

5. Per contra, Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu appearing for the respondent would submit that as a taxpayer, a mandate is cast on the appellant to file the tax returns within the stipulated period. The SOP was only a facility extended to the taxpayers to remind them of the period. It does not have any statutory force and as per the impugned order, dated 17.04.2025, which was under challenge in the writ petition, due notice dated 06.12.2024 was served on the appellant/petitioner and despite the same, the appellant/petitioner has not filed the returns within the specified period. He would further submit that the impugned order is also appealable and without filing an appeal, the appellant/petitioner has approached this Court by filing the writ petition.

6. He would also further submit that though previously there was a bar for filing GST returns on expiry of 3 years, a window has been opened permitting the assesses to file the returns even after the lapse of 3 years.

7. Mandate is cast upon the taxpayer to file the returns within the time schedule. The learned Single Judge rightly finding that the returns have not been filed within the statutory period and thereby the assessee is liable to pay late fee had dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any merit in this writ appeal.

8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed that liberty may be granted to the assessee to file an appeal within a period of 30 days.

9. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the appellant/petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Act, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.