High Court of Madras9 June 2026

Sri Nav Visw Ratna Industries v. Commercial Tax Officer

For assessee

W.P. NO. 19778 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where statute prescribed late fee for delayed annual return, separate general penalty for same default was impermissible; late fee for 995-day delay was to be upheld, but penalty component was to be set aside as it would result in duplication of statutory consequence

Provisions considered

Section 125, read with sections 44 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.

High Court of Madras9 June 2026

Sri Nav Visw Ratna Industries v. Commercial Tax Officer

For assessee

W.P. NO. 19778 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Section 125, read with sections 44 and 47, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

Members

Read the full analysis

The background, the issue before the court and the reasoning behind the decision are free for members — along with the professional discussion on this ruling.

Free to join. No card required.

Already a member? Sign in

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

Case details

Forum: High Court of Madras
Bench: SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J
Decided on: 9 Jun 2026
Case no.: W.P. NO. 19778 OF 2026
Outcome: In favour of the assessee
Tax area: GST
Topic: Penalty & confiscation

Madras High Court17 Aug 2026

Tvl. Factorial Industries v. State Tax Officer

Where petitioner was subjected to late fee and general penalty for delayed filing of annual returns, imposition of late fee for delay of 712 days was sustained, however general penalty under section 125 could not be imposed after levy of late fee in view of Ms. Kandan Hardware Mart v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) (FAC) [2026] aside to extent of penalty

CGST S.125

Madras High Court6 Jul 2026

For revenue

Ind-korosho Exim v. State Tax Officer-2

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

Madras High Court17 Jun 2026

For assessee

Sai Cashew Processors v. Deputy State Tax Officer -1

Where both statutory late fee and general penalty were imposed for same delayed filing of returns, once specific late fee was prescribed and levied under law, imposition of general penalty for identical default was unwarranted and penalty orders were to be set aside while late fee remained intact

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Related rulings

Tvl. Factorial Industries v. State Tax Officer

Ind-korosho Exim v. State Tax Officer-2

Sai Cashew Processors v. Deputy State Tax Officer -1

Read the full analysis