Fact of the Case:  The petitioner, Tvl. KPK Fuel Services, challenged the order dated 13.12.2023 issued in Form GST DRC-07 under Section 73 of the TNGST Act for the financial year 2017-18. The impugned order imposed late fee and penalty on the petitioner for failure to file the annual return in Form GSTR-9. The petitioner contended that the statutory period for filing the annual return had expired and therefore no late fee could be levied thereafter. It was further argued that the authority incorrectly recorded that the annual return was filed on 07.12.2022 whereas the return had not been filed.The litigation arose on the issue whether late fee under Section 47(2) could be imposed for complete non-filing of annual return and whether penalty under Section 125 could additionally be levied. The petitioner argued that late fee applies only to belated filing and not to non-filing of return. The petitioner also challenged the simultaneous levy of penalty after imposing late fee. The respondent defended the order by relying upon the provisions of Section 47(2) and Section 125 of the CGST/TNGST Act.

Held by court : The Madras High Court examined Section 47(2) of the CGST Act, which provides that any registered person who fails to furnish the return required under Section 44 by the due date shall be liable to pay late fee for every day during which such failure continues. The Court observed that the language of the provision clearly covers cases of failure to furnish return and is not restricted only to delayed filing after eventual submission. Therefore, late fee can validly be imposed even where the annual return is not filed at all.The Court further held that penalty under Section 125 was also sustainable because no separate penalty is prescribed under the GST enactments for failure to file annual return. Section 125 authorizes imposition of general penalty for contravention of provisions where no specific penalty exists. Accordingly, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition. The levy of both late fee and penalty was upheld as legally valid.

Fact of the Case: The petitioner, M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, an SEZ Unit, challenged the refund rejection order dated 08.12.2025 whereby refund of IGST amounting to Rs.13,09,78,306/- on Group Health Insurance Services was denied for the period November 2023 to December 2023. The petitioner contended that the refund authority wrongly treated the claim as relating to zero-rated supplies instead of a refund claim where tax incidence had been borne by the recipient under Section 16 of the IGST Act and Section 54 of the CGST Act.The petitioner further argued that Group Health Insurance Services formed part of approved SEZ services and were necessary for employee welfare and authorised operations of the SEZ Unit. It was also alleged that the refund authority introduced fresh grounds beyond the show cause notice and that endorsement from the SEZ GST Officer was pending. The petitioner therefore approached the High Court challenging the rejection order directly through writ jurisdiction.

Held by court :The Telangana High Court observed that the issues raised by the petitioner involved examination of disputed facts and merits regarding eligibility of refund and classification of supplies. The Court held that the petitioner’s contention whether the claim was outside the scope of zero-rated supply and whether it was a simplicitor refund claim required detailed adjudication by the appellate authority.The Court declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of availability of an effective alternative remedy of appeal. It granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks and directed that the appellate authority should consider the delay sympathetically since the petitioner had been pursuing remedy before the High Court. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of.

Fact of the Case: The petitioner, M/s Narayan Enterprise, engaged in trading activities and had purchased goods from suppliers during FY 2018-19 after paying GST through banking channels supported by valid invoices. During investigation by DGGI, allegations were made that the petitioner had wrongly availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 22,22,695/- without actual receipt of goods. Search operations were conducted, statements were recorded, and the petitioner submitted all supporting documents including GSTR-1, GSTR-3B and purchase invoices.Subsequently, a show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act was issued alleging wrongful availment of ITC in violation of Section 16(2). The adjudicating authority confirmed tax demand, interest and equal penalty, which was also upheld in appeal. The petitioner challenged the orders before the Gauhati High Court contending that all purchases were genuine, payments were made through banking channels, goods were received, and ITC could not be denied merely because suppliers allegedly failed to deposit tax with the Government.

Held by court :The Gauhati High Court held that the issue was squarely covered by the earlier Division Bench judgment in National Plasto Moulding Vs. State of Assam, wherein it was held that a bona fide purchasing dealer cannot be penalized for the failure of the selling dealer to deposit tax collected from the purchaser. The Court relied upon the Delhi High Court judgment in On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. and observed that denial of ITC to a genuine purchaser would amount to imposing an impossible burden upon the purchasing dealer.The Court observed that once the purchasing dealer had acted bona fide, possessed valid tax invoices, received goods and made payment through banking channels, ITC cannot be denied solely due to supplier default. The impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal were therefore set aside. However, liberty was granted to the department to proceed in accordance with law if there is evidence of collusion or non-genuine transactions.

Fact of the Case: The petitioner was engaged in execution of works contract services and retail business and was duly registered under the CGST Act, 2017 and Assam GST Act, 2017. Due to financial hardship, the petitioner failed to file GST returns continuously for six months. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 05.02.2024 was issued under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act proposing cancellation of GST registration and suspending the registration from the same date. Thereafter, by order dated 25.04.2024, the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled.The petitioner approached the Gauhati High Court stating that although the statutory period for revocation had expired, all pending returns till April 2024 had already been filed and the petitioner was ready to comply with all requirements prescribed under proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner relied upon the earlier decision of the Gauhati High Court in Dhirghat Hardware Stores & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., where similar relief was granted.

Held by court : The Gauhati High Court observed that under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, GST registration may be cancelled for non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months. However, the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules provides that if the registered person furnishes all pending returns and makes payment of tax dues along with applicable interest and late fees, the proper officer may drop cancellation proceedings and restore registration.The Court held that cancellation of GST registration has serious civil consequences and since the petitioner was willing to comply with statutory requirements, similar relief as granted in Dhirghat Hardware Stores case should also be extended to the petitioner. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authority within sixty days seeking restoration of registration and directed the authority to consider the application expeditiously in accordance with law after compliance of Rule 22(4).