Madras High Court
WP/39627/2026 of Tvl Amman Traders Vs THE STATE TAX OFFICER on 9 October 2026
WP No. 39627 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 39627 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012277222026}
AND WMP NO. 44545 OF 2026
Tvl Amman Traders
Represented by its Proprietor
Mr.Karuppannan
S.No.194/1, Kullapanaickenoor
Panamarathupatty Via,
Thippampatty, Salem 636 204.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The State Tax Officer
Kondalampatty Assessment Circle,
3rd Floor, Commercial Taxes Office Building, Pitchards Road, Hasthampatty, Salem 636 007.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the Impugned order bearing GSTIN 33AGOPK2741G2ZH /2022-2023 in Form GST DRC-07 with Reference No.ZD330425005026Z Dated 01.04.2025 on the file of the Respondent and quash the same as it is in gross violation of principles of natural justice, judicial discipline, is arbitrary, perverse and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution For Petitioner(s):
Mr.M. Narasimha Bharathi
For Respondent(s):
Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, AGP
WP No. 39627 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the respondent.
2. Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondent.
3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent on 01.04.2025, by levying a sum of Rs.91,400/- towards late fee and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards penalty.
5. On the other hand, he would contend that the penalty can be imposed in the cases, where no provision is available for late fee. However, in this case, when the provision is very well available for imposing late fee under Section 47 of the GST Act, no penalty can be imposed by the petitioner by invoking Section 125 of the GST Act. Hence, he requests this Court to set aside the penalty portion of the impugned order. In support of his contentions, he referred
WP No. 39627 of 2026
to the order dated 02.01.2026 passed by this Court in WP.No.27029 of 2023 (Ms.Kandan Hardware Mart vs. The Assistant Commissioner).
6. Further, he would submit that in this case, there is some discrepancies in the impugned order with regard to the calculation of late fee, against which, the petitioner intends to file a rectification application before the respondent. Hence, he seeks liberty of this Court to file the same.
7. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent had confirmed the submissions made by the petitioner and would submit that the issue involved in this petition has already been squarely covered vide the order dated 02.01.2026 passed by this Court in WP.No.27029 of 2023 (Ms.Kandan Hardware Mart vs. The Assistant Commissioner). Hence, she requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.
9. In the case on hand, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent on 01.04.2025, by levying a sum of Rs.91,400/- towards late fee and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards penalty.
WP No. 39627 of 2026
10. As rightly contended by the petitioner, when the provision is very well available for levying late fee under Section 47 of the GST Act, the question of imposing “General Penalty” under Section 125 of the GST Act would not at all arise. The said aspect was also upheld by this Court vide order dated 02.01.2026 passed in WP.No.27029 of 2023 (Ms.Kandan Hardware Mart vs. The Assistant Commissioner). However, without considering the said aspect, the impugned order was passed by the respondent by levying both the late fee and penalty from the petitioner and thus, no doubt, the penalty portion alone is liable to be set aside.
11. That apart, it was submitted that the petitioner has already paid the admitted tax liability and now, he intends to file a rectification application against the late fee imposed by the respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the penalty portion of the impugned order. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:
(i) The impugned order dated 01.04.2025 is set aside only to the extent of penalty imposed against the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner is granted liberty to file a rectification application against the late fee imposed by the respondent within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
WP No. 39627 of 2026
12. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsa To The State Tax Officer Kondalampatty Assessment Circle, 3rd Floor, Commercial Taxes Office Building, Pitchards Road, Hasthampatty, Salem 636 007.
WP No. 39627 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. nsa WP No. 39627 of 2026 09-10-2026 (3/3)