Madras High Court
WP/36758/2026 of MR.Leo Brightwin Vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) on 22 September 2026
WP No. 36758 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.09.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
WP No. 36758 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012009762026}
and
WMP No. 41198 of 2026
Mr.Leo Brightwin
Proprietor of Tvl. Jones Enterprises,
No.4, T.V.K.Nagar, Vetri Nagar Extension, Nagammal Street, Chennai - 600082.
..Petitioner
Vs
The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
Washermenpet Assessment Circle,
Integrated Commercial Taxes Office Complex, Room No.206, No.1275/3, Bridge Road, Vepery, Chennai – 600 003.
..Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the Respondent No.1 vide Order No. GSTIN 33AZGPL7151C1ZO/2020-21 along with its FORM GST DRC 07
vide Reference No. ZD330225190400V both dated 19.02.2025 and quash the said order insofar as it relates to general penalty of Rs.25,000/- CGST
and Rs.25,000/- SGST imposed for non-filing of Form GSTR-9 annual return.
For Petitioner:
Mr.Balachandar R
For Respondent:
Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran,
Additional Government Pleader (Tax)
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
An order imposing both late fee and penalty for non-filing of annual returns is assailed in this writ petition.
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 04:16:44 pm )
WP No. 36758 of 2026
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court held in M/s.Kandan Hardware Mart rep. By its Proprietor E.Palani vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Park Town Assessment Circle, Chennai – 600 003 [(2026) 38 Centax 332 (Mad.)] that general penalty cannot be imposed after imposing a late fee.
3. Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax), accepts notice for the respondent.
4. On perusal of the impugned order, it is noticeable that late fee has been imposed for the period of delay of 959 days. No case is made out to interfere with the imposition of late fee. As regards penalty, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court held in Kandan Hardware that general penalty under Section 125 of the applicable GST enactments cannot be imposed after imposing a late fee. Following the said position, the impugned order is set aside only insofar as it pertains to imposition of penalty.
5. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 22.09.2026 Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No mmi
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 04:16:44 pm )
WP No. 36758 of 2026
To The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) Washermenpet Assessment Circle, Integrated Commercial Taxes Office Complex, Room No.206, No.1275/3, Bridge Road, Vepery, Chennai - 600003.
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 04:16:44 pm )
WP No. 36758 of 2026
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. mmi WP No. 36758 of 2026 22.09.2026
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 04:16:44 pm )