TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether late fee under Section 47(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is leviable for non-filing of the annual return in Form GSTR-9; and whether penalty under Section 125 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 can also be imposed for such default.
Analysis: Section 47(2) provides for late fee where a registered person fails to furnish the return required under Section 44 by the due date, and the levy operates for continuing default subject to the statutory cap. The contention that late fee can be levied only for belated filing and not for non-filing was rejected on the plain language of the provision. As to penalty, Section 125 applies where contravention of GST provisions or rules is not otherwise visited with a separate penalty. Since no separate penalty was prescribed for failure to file the annual return, the penalty imposed was held to be in accordance with law.
Conclusion: The challenge to the levy of late fee and penalty failed, and interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was held unwarranted.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the impugned order imposing late fee and penalty was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 47(2) authorises late fee for failure to furnish the prescribed return by the due date, and penalty under Section 125 is sustainable where no separate penalty is specifically provided for the default.
TaxTMI 
