High Court of Madras6 July 2026

Ind-korosho Exim v. State Tax Officer-2

For revenue

WP NO. 21615 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where petitioner challenged order imposing penalty for non-maintenance of records relying on section 47 that penalty under Section 122 could not be imposed after levying late fee thereunder, since section 47 pertains to belated filing of returns and section 122 prescribes penalty in respect of several matters including non- maintenance of books of accounts, there was no infirmity in order warranting interference and writ petition was to be dismissed

Provisions considered

Section 122, read with sections 35, 36 and 47, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

GSTAT Agra17 Sept 2026

For assessee

Jitendra Kumar v. R.V. Brick Field

Where survey at brick kilns revealed excess or unaccounted bricks and coal not recorded in books and persons present failed to produce documents, initiation of confiscation proceedings with penalty and fine under section 130 was impermissible, as proper procedure required tax determination as if supplied under section 35(6) read with sections 73 and 74, rendering confiscation unsustainable GST: Where excess or unaccounted stock found at respondents' brick kilns led to confiscation and penalty orders, and Commissioner (Appeals) quashed both confiscation and penalty due to lack of legal basis, revenue's appeals confined only to fine could not be sustained in absence of a surviving confiscation, rendering such appeals meritless and not maintainable

Supreme Court18 Aug 2026

For revenue

Marginmart Infosystems (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner CGST

Where penalty proceedings for issuance of invoices without actual supply and wrongful ITC were initiated after an investigation found recipient non-existent, and statutory appeal under section 107 was available to challenge both jurisdiction and procedural grounds, writ petition under Article 226 was not entertained, and assessee was directed to pursue the appellate remedy, leaving all questions open for consideration by Appellate Authority; instant Court found no error in impugned order passed by High Court, SLP was to be disposed of

Delhi High Court13 Aug 2026

For revenue

Arun Kumar Jain v. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi West Commissionerate

Where directors and managing directors were subjected to penalty under section 122(1) for alleged fraudulent availment and utilization of ITC by their companies, and applicability of section 122(1) to a person who was not a taxable person was pending consideration before Supreme Court, writ petition was not to be entertained as statutory appeal under section 107 was available, thus, petitioners were relegated to appellate remedy

Related rulings

GSTAT Agra17 Sept 2026

For assessee

Ind-korosho Exim v. State Tax Officer-2

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Ind-korosho Exim v. State Tax Officer-2

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Jitendra Kumar v. R.V. Brick Field

Marginmart Infosystems (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner CGST

Arun Kumar Jain v. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi West Commissionerate

Read the full analysis