PENALTY FOR LATE FILING OF GSTR-3B

[Sadanand Bulbule]

In terms of Rule 61 of the CGST Rules, every registered person other than ISD shall furnish a return in FORM GSTR-3B, electronically on or before the twentieth day of the month succeeding such month.

In many States, the GST Authorities are levying penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 125 even for the delay of one day in filing GSTR-3B.

Comments of the experts on this issue.

[Alkesh Jani]

Dear Experts, 

I am highly thankful to you all for help extended to arrive at the conclusion. the relevant portion of the said Judgement is reproduced below:-

"A reading of the above would show that in the event no penalty is separately provided in this act, general penalty would apply. In the present case, penalty was imposed in the form of late fee in terms of Section 47 of the Act. Therefore, general penalty of Rs. 50,000/- towards CGST and SGST is not correct and the same is set aside. As far as late fee is concerned, the same is confirmed."

Thus, we can say that late fees can also be termed as penalty.

Thanks to all again.

With regards.

[KASTURI SETHI]

Dear Sh. Alkesh Jani Ji,

"Thus, we can say that late fees can also be termed as penalty".

Statutorily and dictionarily the meaning and essence of any word cannot be changed. This judgement of Hon'ble High Court will act as a springboard for seeking relief, if not challenged by the department. 

                      

[Sadanand Bulbule]

Dear all

In continuation of my last comments on the Hon'ble Madras High Court on the levy of penalty under Section 125 for belated filing of GSTR-3B, plz refer the following gist of the latest judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus in my understanding it supersedes the said judgement of Hon'ble Madras High Court:

The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by a construction company confirming the ruling of Andhra High Court upholding the penalty imposed for non-filing and non-payment of Goods and Services Tax Returns (GSTR). It confirmed the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s ruling confirming the penalty imposed by the department.

The Andhra High Court held that the failure to file monthly returns and remit taxes, despite receiving payments, amounted to wilful suppression. It confirmed the imposition of penalty under Section 74(1) and associated penalties under Sections 122 and 125, rejecting the petitioner’s claim of bona fide default. The apex court found nothing to interfere with the Andhra High Court, thus upheld its ruling and confirmed the penalty for non-filing of GST returns and its Non-payment.

Experts to comment:

[Sadanand Bulbule]

Plz refer the related judgement:

2025 (1) TMI 1518 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT - M/S. SRIBA NIRMAN COMPANY VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), GUNTUR, CENTRAL TAX & CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM., THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CNTRAL TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM, THE JOINT CIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST), ARYAPURAM CIRCLE,.

[Sadanand Bulbule]

SLP reference:

Sriba Nirman Company vs The Commissioner (Appeals), Guntur, Central Tax and Customs & ors. - 2025 (5) TMI 1274 - SC ORDER

[Sadanand Bulbule]

Dear all

The  division bench judgement and the Hon'ble Supreme court order {supra] clearly demarcates the thin line between the necessity of adjudication under Section 73 and 74. So authorities without establishing the incontrovertible evidence indicating the element of intent to evade tax fraudulently, they are barred from touching jurisdiction under Section 74.  

Experience echos that despite such crystal clear legal position, many authorities are mentally constipated in invoking the jurisdiction even by interpreting the facts/law to have convenient jurisdiction under extended time period without there being any intent to suppress the facts, much less tax evasion.  As such it is high time for them to stop such reckless orders under Section 74 in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement [supra]. The top administration should ensure this. Otherwise it is hand in glove to harass the genuine taxpayers knocking the doors of judicial courts saddled with heavy cost of litigation besides pledging peace of mind.

AI Summary

Late fee vs general penalty: invoking a general penalty where statutory late fee applies demands adjudication and careful application.
The text distinguishes the automatic statutory late fee for delayed GSTR-3B filing from the discretionary, adjudicatory general penalty invoked where no specific penalty is prescribed. Opinions vary on whether the general penalty can be applied to registered persons for simple delay; judicial authorities have set aside general penalties where late fee alone applied, while appellate orders have upheld penalties where wilful suppression or intent to evade tax was found. The Explanation to recovery provisions classifies late fee and penalty as "other dues," impacting recovery and ledger usage.