Facts of the Case:

In this case, the petitioner challenged an order by which the GST authorities imposed late fee and penalty for failure to furnish the annual return in Form GSTR-9 for the relevant financial year. The petitioner contended that, in terms of the statutory provisions governing annual returns, the time limit for filing the annual return for FY 2017-18 stood extended through a notification which fixed the due date as 05.02.2020 (as referred to in the judgment). According to the petitioner, once the prescribed period for filing the annual return had expired, no late fee could be levied merely on account of non-filing. It was further argued that the impugned order incorrectly recorded that the return had been filed belatedly on 07.12.2022, whereas the real allegation was one of non-filing. The petitioner also challenged the imposition of penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act on the ground that once a late fee had been imposed, a separate penalty could not be levied for the same default.

The revenue defended the order by relying upon Section 47(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, which specifically provides for levy of late fee where a registered person fails to furnish the annual return by the prescribed due date. It was also contended that Section 125 operates independently and authorizes imposition of a general penalty where no specific penalty is prescribed for a contravention of the GST law.

Issue:

Whether late fee under Section 47(2) of the CGST Act can be levied for failure to file the annual return in Form GSTR-9 after the prescribed due date, and whether a separate penalty under Section 125 can also be imposed for such contravention.

Held That:

The Court examined Section 47(2) of the CGST Act, which provides that any registered person who fails to furnish the annual return required under Section 44 by the due date shall be liable to pay a late fee of ₹100 per day for the period during which the failure continues, subject to the prescribed maximum limit. On a plain reading of the provision, the Court held that the statutory trigger for levy of late fee is the failure to furnish the annual return by the due date. Therefore, the petitioner’s contention that late fee can be imposed only in cases of belated filing and not in cases of non-filing was rejected.

The Court observed that the provision specifically contemplates a continuing default and authorizes levy of late fee for the entire period during which the failure to furnish the return persists.

The Court further considered the challenge to the penalty imposed under Section 125. It noted that Section 125 provides for a general penalty of up to ₹25,000 for contravention of any provision of the GST law or the rules made thereunder where no separate penalty is specifically prescribed. Since the GST enactments do not prescribe any distinct penalty for failure to file the annual return, the authorities were justified in invoking Section 125. The Court therefore concluded that the levy of penalty was legally sustainable and was not barred merely because late fee had also been imposed.

Finding no infirmity in the impugned order and holding that both statutory provisions had been correctly applied, the Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed the petition.

 

Case Name: Tvl. KPK Fuel Services Rep by its Proprietor Kuppan Kannan Versus State Tax officer, Hosur dated 02.06.2026

To read the complete judgement 2026 Taxo.online 1632