BharatTaxGST

Ponkavi Filaments vs. The Commercial Tax Officer

Original PDF →
WP(MD)/17349/2026HC MadrasGSTCNR HCMD01082210202623 June 2026Bench: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY5 pages

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
WP(MD). No.17349 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 23.06.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY WP(MD). No.17349 of 2026 Ponkavi Filaments Represented by its Proprietor, P.Sasikumar ... Petitioner Vs The Commercial Tax Officer, Karur-I, Karur. ... Respondent PRAYER :- Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the respondent in Reference No. ZD330126226579B dated 31.01.2026 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to accept the GSTR9 annual return filed for the tax period 2023-24 dated 23.2.2026. For Petitioner : Mr.R.R.Kannan, For Respondent : Ms.P.Sudarkodi Nachiar Government Standing Counsel 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.17349 of 2026

ORDER This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 31.01.2026, which is an order of assessment passed under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act 2017. 2. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order imposes late fee on the petitioner with reference to the belated filing of returns in Form GSTR

9.

In this regard, even with reference to the connected years, the petitioner has deposited the late fee at 0.02% as per the Central Government Notification, dated 31.03.2023. As far as the present year 2023 - 2024 alone is concerned, the same did not appear in the online portal and as such, the petitioner did not pay the same. However, the impugned order has also calculated the late fee at 0.251%.

3.

Per contra, the learned Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that the petitioner has not remitted any late fee at all leave alone the quantum and therefore the impugned order has rightly been passed. 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4.

I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

5.

Considering the submission that the late fee payable is stipulated by the notification of the Central Government at 0.02% and considering the circumstances in which the petitioner is said to have filed the return belatedly and was unable to pay the said 0.02%, I am of the view that an opportunity can be granted to the petitioner. As undertaken, the petitioner shall pay the late fee at 0.02%, and upon such payment, the matter can be taken up for reconsideration.

6.

In view thereof, this writ petition is allowed on the following terms: i. Within four weeks from the date of receipt of a web copy of this order, the petitioner shall deposit 0.02% of the turnover for the year 2023-2024 with the respondent; ii. Upon such deposit, the impugned order dated 31.01.2026 shall stand quashed and the matter shall stand remanded back to the respondent; 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis iii. The petitioner is entitled to file such reply and documents in support of their claim and it is for the respondent to consider the issue afresh. iv. Since the impugned order of assessment is set aside, any attachment of the bank account made pursuant to the impugned order shall stand raised. v. No costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

23.06.

2026 NCC : Yes/No sji TO The Commercial Tax Officer, Karur-I, Karur. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. sji

ORDER IN WP(MD) No.17349 of 2026 Date : 23/06/2026 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.