M/S.Ganjam Galaxy Bhapur Barkatulla Street, Ganjam vs. State Of Odisha

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Ganjam Galaxy Bhapur, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. The petition challenged a notice (RFN No. MA210326030584A dated 20.03.2026) issued by the Opposite Party No. 2, imposing late fees/penalties under Section 47 read with Rule 80 of the CGST Rules for non-filing of GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C. The petitioner sought to quash this notice, declare the penalty provision under Section 47 unconstitutional, and direct the respondents to simplify annual return formats and invoke exemptions for filing annual returns under the first proviso to Section 44 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the reliefs claimed had become infructuous and did not wish to press the petition.

Held

The Court noted that during the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reliefs claimed in the writ petition had become infructuous. Consequently, the petitioner's counsel stated that they did not wish to press the writ petition. In light of this submission, the Court found that the matter no longer required adjudication on its merits. The Court did not delve into the constitutional validity of Section 47 of the CGST Act or the procedural aspects of filing annual returns. The primary reason for the disposal was the petitioner's own statement that the reliefs sought were no longer pressed. Therefore, no findings were made on the substantive issues raised in the petition. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition as infructuous.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice RFN No. MA210326030584A dated 20.03.2026, imposing late fees/penalties under Section 47 read with Rule 80 of the CGST Rules for non-filing of GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C, is liable to be quashed? (Question of law) 2. Whether the penalty provision under Section 47 of the CGST Act, to the extent it permits levy up to 0.25% of turnover, is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? (Question of law) 3. Whether the respondents should be directed to simplify the annual return formats and invoke exemptions for filing annual returns pursuant to the first proviso to Section 44 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, considering special circumstances? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice imposing penalties was liable to be quashed. They further contended that Section 47 of the CGST Act, which allows penalties up to 0.25% of turnover, is unconstitutional and violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Additionally, they sought directions for simplification of annual return formats and invocation of exemptions under Section 44 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, based on special circumstances. Revenue/State's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Opposite Parties (The State of Odisha and others).