Madras High Court
WP/37618/2026 of SRI AZHAGU NACHIAMMAN MODERN RICE MILL Vs DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER 1 on 5 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 37618 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012160082026}
AND
WMP NO. 42234 OF 2026
Sri Azhagu Nachiamman Modern Rice Mill,
44/4, Pasungayamangalam Road,
Kallakurichi, Viluppuram District,
Pin - 606 202, represented by its managing Partner Mr. K. Gnanavel
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Deputy State Tax Officer 1,
2. State Tax Officer,
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order bearing Reference No. ZD3304241818086 with detailed order annexed thereto bearing Order No 33ABXFS4289F1ZJ /2018-19 dated 24/04/2024 passed by the First Respondent and the consequential issue of Form GST DRC-16 dated 23/07/2026 passed by the Second Respondent, quash the same
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Tr Ramesh
For Respondent(s):
Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, 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 order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the 1st respondent.
2. Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents.
3. By consent of the parties, the main petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the impugned order came to be passed by the 1st respondent on 24.04.2024, by levying a sum of Rs.2,42,000/- towards late fee and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards penalty. Consequently, the attachment was made by the 2nd respondent vide impugned notice dated 23.07.2026. Hence, this petition.
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 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. He would also submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the late fee to the tune of Rs.2,42,000/- and hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
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).
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 1st respondent on 24.04.2024, by levying a sum of Rs.2,42,000/- towards late fee and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards penalty. Consequently, the attachment was made by the 2nd respondent vide impugned notice dated 23.07.2026.
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 1st 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 is ready and willing to pay the entire amount of Rs.2,42,000/- 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 24.04.2024 is set aside only to the extent of penalty imposed against the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner shall pay the late fee to the tune of Rs.2,42,000/- to the respondents within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii) Upon payment of the aforesaid amount, the 2nd respondent is directed to lift the attachment made vide impugned notice dated 23.07.2026.
12. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 05-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsa To
1. Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Kallakurichi Assessment Circle,No.103/5, Nepal Street, Kallakurichi
2. State Tax Officer,
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. nsa WP No. 37618 of 2026 05-10-2026 (3/4)