Dhanalakshmi Agencies v. The State Tax OfficerDharapuram Assessment Circle
Case at a glance
Outcome
Set aside
Subject to remittance of 25% of the late fee within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration only so far as late fee is concerned
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In Kandhan Hardware and other cases, this Court held that the imposition of a late fee is penal and that general penalty should not be imposed in cases where a late fee is levied. By following the said judgment, the impugned order is partly…
- Para 77. Subject to remittance of 25% of the late fee within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration only so far as late fee is concerned.…
Judgment
WP No. 21785 of 2026__________Page1 of 5IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18-06-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHYWP No. 21785 of 2026and W.M.P.Nos.23608 & 23609 of 2026 Dhanalakshmi Agencies, Represented by its Proprietor, senkattupalayam muthusamygounder kandasamy, No.3/452, Main Road, Koduvai, Tiruppur 638 660...Petitioner(s)VsThe State Tax OfficerDharapuram Assessment Circle, No.130-138, Jawlikadai street, Dharapuram - 638656...Respondent(s)PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the Respondent herein in impugned order in Form DRC-07 having reference No.ZD3312252577575 dated 16.12.2025 for the financial year 2020-21 passed under Section 73 of the Tamilnadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 herein after referred to as GST Act, 2017 and quash the same as arbitrary, unjust and illegal and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondent to consider the matter afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of personal hearing. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21785 of 2026__________Page2 of 5For Petitioner(s):Mr.Parthiban VFor Respondent(s):Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, Government Counsel (Tax)*********ORDERAn order imposing late fee and penalty is assailed in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the turn over for financial year ended on 31.03.2021 was below the threshold of Rs.2 Crores. Consequently, he contends that the petitioner was not required to file an annual return as per the proviso to Section 44 of applicable GST enactments. He relies on Notification No.31/2021-Central Tax.
Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Counsel (Tax), accepts notice for the respondent.
On examining Section 44 and Notification No.31/2021, the petitioner makes out a prima facie case that he is not required to file the annual return. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21785 of 2026__________Page3 of 5However, this aspect is required to be determined after closely examining the financial statement and other documents of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 25% of the amounts payable under the impugned order towards late fee as a condition for remand. He has made an endorsement to that effect on the bundle.
In Kandhan Hardware and other cases, this Court held that the imposition of a late fee is penal and that general penalty should not be imposed in cases where a late fee is levied. By following the said judgment, the impugned order is partly set aside as regards the imposition of general penalty.
Operative part
Subject to remittance of 25% of the late fee within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration only so far as late fee is concerned. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within three months from the date of remittance of the said 25%. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21785 of 2026__________Page4 of 58. This writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.18-06-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoRNAToThe State Tax OfficerDharapuram Assessment Circle, No.130-138, Jawlikadai street, Dharapuram - 638656. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21785 of 2026__________Page5 of 5SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.RNAWP No. 21785 of 2026and W.M.P.Nos.23608 & 23609 of 202618-06-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Subject to remittance of 25% of the late fee within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration only so far as late fee is concerned
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Tamilnadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 — s. 73; Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.