Case Details: Prajith Enterprises vs. State Tax Officer [2026] 183 taxmann.com 404 (Madras)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- C. Saravanan, J.
- Sanskar Samdaria S for the Petitioner.
- Mrs K. Vasanthamala, Government Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged the assessment order passed under Form GST DRC-07, which was preceded by a show cause notice (SCN). The impugned assessment had levied both a general penalty and a late fee for the delayed filing of returns under the CGST Act. It was submitted that a separate assessment order had already been passed for the same tax period, wherein a general penalty of Rs. 50,000 had been imposed, thereby resulting in duplication of penalty for the same tax period. It was contended that such a double imposition of penalty was impermissible. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that under Section 125 read with Section 47 of the CGST Act and the Tamil Nadu GST Act, imposing both a general penalty and a late fee for the same tax period was not permissible, as it created overlapping liability. It was observed that since two assessment orders had already been passed for the same tax period, the general penalty of Rs. 50,000 should be dropped. The liability was limited solely to the late fee, payable within 30 days. The Court concluded that, upon payment of the late fee, the impugned order was set aside, the recovery proceedings were to be dropped, and the appellate authority was directed to proceed to pass a final order on the merits.
List of Cases Referred to
- Ms Kandan Hardware Mart v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) (FAC) [2026] 182 taxmann.com 632 (Madras) (para 6).
The post General Penalty and Late Fee for Same Period Not Permissible | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
