Madras High Court
WP/39311/2026 of T.C.Mahendran Vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) on 7 October 2026
WP No. 39311 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 39311 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012168042026}
AND
WMP NO. 44160 OF 2026
T.C.Mahendran
Rep. by its Proprietor Thanappamudu,
Chengalvaraayan Mahendran,
No.1/23, Egumadurai, Tiruvallur,
Tamilnadu - 601201.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Gummidipoondi Assessment Circle,
Integrated Commercial Taxes Office,
Building Complex,
No. 32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road,
Chennai - 600003.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the Respondents impugned Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 22.01.2025 bearing reference no. ZD3301251818791 along with the connected detailed order dated 22.01.2025 passed in proceedings 33APXPM4245B1ZV/2020-21 and quash the same For Petitioner(s):
Ms.Vaani Sreekant Iyer
For Respondent(s):
Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, AGP
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 06:38:58 pm )
WP No. 39311 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 orders dated 22.01.2025 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 these case, the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 came to be passed by the respondent by levying a sum of Rs.2,84,800/- towards late fee and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards penalty, out of which, now, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the late fee to the respondent.
5. Further, he would contend that the penalty can be imposed in the cases, where there is no provision 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
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 06:38:58 pm )
WP No. 39311 of 2026
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 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. 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.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.
8. In the case on hand, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent on 22.01.2025, by levying a sum of Rs.2,84,800/- towards late fee and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards penalty.
9. 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
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 06:38:58 pm )
WP No. 39311 of 2026
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 1st respondent by levying both the late fee and penalty from the petitioner and thus, no doubt, the penalty portion of the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
10. That apart, it was submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the entire amount of Rs.2,84,800/- towards late fee to 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 22.01.2025 is set aside only to the extent of penalty imposed against the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner is granted liberty to pay the late fee to the tune of Rs.2,84,800/- to the respondents within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsa
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 06:38:58 pm )
WP No. 39311 of 2026
To The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Gummidipoondi Assessment Circle,Integrated Commercial Taxes Office, Building Complex, No. 32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road,Chennai - 600003.
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 06:38:58 pm )
WP No. 39311 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. nsa WP No. 39311 of 2026 07-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 06:38:58 pm )