Madras High Court
WP/38830/2026 of Marriyammal Agencies Vs The State Tax Officer on 6 October 2026
WP No. 38830 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 38830 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012154632026}
and
WMP Nos.43561 and 43562 of 2026
Marriyammal Agencies
(Represented by its Proprietor
Mr.V.Ashok Kumar)
3/329 C, N.A.Vedugathampatti
Thirumalai Giri Post,
Salem-636 307
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The State Tax Officer,
(Also Known as Commercial Tax Officer) Salem Rural Assessment Circle, Pithcards Road, Hasthampatty, Salem-636 007
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records on the files of the learned Respondent herein in his proceeding in FORM GST DRC-07 with Reference No.
ZD330225107803S dated 12.02.2025, along with a detailed order in GSTIN
33BCGPA8830B1Z7/2020-21dated 12.02.2025 for the tax period APR 2020
MAR 2021 and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.B. Syed Abdul Wakell
For Respondent(s):
Mr.I.Dinesh, AGP
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 impugned order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the respondent.
WP No. 38830 of 2026
2. In the present case, both late fee of Rs.2,34,980/- and penalty of Rs.50,000/- have been levied for non-filing of tax returns in time.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that imposing of late fee alone is sustainable in law and simultaneously penalty cannot be imposed and suitable orders may be passed.
4. On the similar issue, this court, in Tvl.Jainsons Castors & Industrial Products vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Chennai (2025(2) TMI 1000), has held that the respondent authority can levy only late fee and not penalty.
5. The issue is also considered by this court in M/s.Kandan Hardware Mart vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) Chennai (2026 (1) TMI 383), wherein it has been held that the question of imposing “General Penalty” under Section 125 of the respective GST Enactments cannot be countenanced in view of the reasons that “General Penalty” under Section 125 of the respective Enactments can be imposed only in the absence of “any other penalty” under Section 125 of the respective Enactments.
6. In view of the above, the impugned order in so far as it imposes penalty of Rs.50,000/- alone is set aside. The petitioner is directed to pay the late fee alone within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
WP No. 38830 of 2026
order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 06-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ssk To The State Tax Officer, (Also Known as Commercial Tax Officer) Salem Rural Assessment Circle, Pithcards Road, Hasthampatty, Salem-636 007
WP No. 38830 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. ssk WP No. 38830 of 2026 06-10-2026