Section 125 penalty cannot be split between CGST and SGST beyond the statutory cap; appellate dismissal fell.

Section 125 penalty could not be split into separate CGST and SGST levies so as to exceed the statutory maximum; the penalty ceiling controlled the total levy, making the bifurcated demand unsustainable. Because the main penalty order was invalid, the consequential appellate order dismissing the matter as time-barred could not survive. The penalty and appellate orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 125 could be imposed separately under CGST and SGST so as to exceed the statutory maximum, and whether the consequential appellate order could stand.

Analysis: The penalty imposed was Rs. 25,000 under CGST and Rs. 25,000 under SGST, aggregating Rs. 50,000. On a reading of Section 125, the statutory cap was treated as controlling the levy, and the bifurcation of penalty into two separate amounts was held to be unjustified. Since the main penalty order was unsustainable, the appellate order dismissing the appeal as time-barred could not survive.

Conclusion: The penalty order and the appellate order were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded on the legality of the penalty levy, but the matter was sent back for reconsideration by the authority concerned.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a maximum penalty, the authority cannot split the levy across CGST and SGST so as to exceed that ceiling.

---