<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (6) TMI 627 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793246</link>
    <description>Late fee may be levied for failure to furnish the annual return in Form GSTR-9 by the due date, because Section 47(2) applies to non-filing as well as belated filing of the return required under Section 44, subject to the statutory cap. Penalty under Section 125 is also sustainable where the GST law does not prescribe a separate penalty for that default. The challenge to both levies failed, and interference under Article 226 was held unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2026 08:33:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=906417" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 627 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793246</link>
      <description>Late fee may be levied for failure to furnish the annual return in Form GSTR-9 by the due date, because Section 47(2) applies to non-filing as well as belated filing of the return required under Section 44, subject to the statutory cap. Penalty under Section 125 is also sustainable where the GST law does not prescribe a separate penalty for that default. The challenge to both levies failed, and interference under Article 226 was held unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793246</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>