Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post a Query
Post a New Query
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Discussion Forum

Back

All Issues

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
OR
Search by Issue ID:
NOTE: If you have inputs in both the fields, then results will be shown for issueId first.
Issue ID :

General penalty under Section 125

MAHTAB KHAN

An assessee delays filing GSTR-3B, Section 47 of the GST Act already prescribes a late fee, which is paid. AO still impose a general penalty under Section 125 for the same delay. When the Act already imposes a late fee under Section 47 for late filing of GSTR-3B, and the same has been paid, on what basis is an additional penalty under Section 125 justified? Is this not double penalty for one lapse? The AO’s imposition of Section 125 penalty is legally sustainable??

Section 125 penalty not sustainable for delayed GSTR-3B after paying Section 47 late fee absent deliberate contravention An assessee queried whether a general penalty under Section 125 can be imposed for delayed GSTR-3B filing when the statutory late fee under Section 47 has been paid. Respondents uniformly held that imposing Section 125 in such cases is unsustainable absent deliberate contravention, fraud, or gross negligence, because the late fee under Section 47 addresses the lapse and additional penalty would amount to double punishment; recent high court decisions have supported this view. The consensus recommendation is to contest any Section 125 levy through appropriate legal challenge. (AI Summary)
answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Issues