GSTAT - ['Hyderabad']Tax LawAdministrative and Public Law

GST Tribunal Imposes ₹10,000 Penalty After Taxpayer Files Returns And Pays Tax But Leaves Interest And Late Fee Unpaid

Md Qamaruddin Khanv.SRI UMAMAHESHWARA INFRATECH

GST Tribunal Imposes ₹10,000 Penalty After Taxpayer Files Returns And Pays Tax But Leaves Interest And Late Fee Unpaid. Md Qamaruddin Khan vs SRI UMAMAHESHWARA INFRATECH. GSTAT - ['Hyderabad']. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the FAA could allow the taxpayer’s appeal and restore its registration without ensuring payment of interest, late fee and penalty in addition to tax.

The court held

The Tribunal allowed the Department’s appeal and modified the FAA’s order to require payment of applicable interest and late fee, and imposed a penalty of ₹10,000, divided equally between Central and State tax (₹5,000 each).

It also directed

The appeal was disposed of without an order as to costs.

01Facts

The Department appealed under Section 112 of the CGST Act against the First Appellate Authority’s order allowing the taxpayer’s appeal and revoking cancellation of its GST registration.

¶ 1

The registration had been cancelled after the taxpayer failed to file GSTR-3B returns for six consecutive months.

¶ 1

The FAA had directed verification of the taxpayer’s filing of returns and payment of tax; the Department contended that interest, late fee and penalty under Rule 23(1) had also to be paid.

¶ 1–6

The taxpayer did not appear before the Tribunal despite multiple hearing opportunities.

¶ 1–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the FAA could allow the taxpayer’s appeal and restore its registration without ensuring payment of interest, late fee and penalty in addition to tax.

¶ 7, 9–10

ii.2. Whether the Tribunal should modify the FAA’s order and impose a penalty in the circumstances of the case.

¶ 11.2–12

03Law Applied

Rule 23(1) of the CGST Rules provides that, where registration was cancelled for failure to furnish returns, an application for revocation cannot be made unless the outstanding returns are furnished and tax due is paid together with applicable interest, penalty and late fee; it also prescribes the filing of subsequent returns after revocation.

¶ 9

The Tribunal referred to Sections 50 and 47 of the Act as providing for interest and late fee, respectively, and to Section 79 as the statutory recovery mechanism for admitted dues.

¶ 11–11.2

It also treated penalty as payable under Rule 23, although the judgment does not identify a separate penalty provision.

¶ 11.2

Provisions in the judgment · 12 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 112Section 30Section 79Section 107Section 50Section 47

Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 Section 112Section 30Section 79Section 107Section 50Section 47

04Reasoning

The Tribunal considered that the FAA had focused on verification of return filing and tax payment without expressly addressing the additional amounts contemplated by Rule 23(1).

¶ 10.1–11.2

It held that the taxpayer had paid tax and filed returns but had not paid the applicable interest and late fee.

¶ 10.1–11.2

The Tribunal observed that those amounts could be recovered under Sections 50 and 47, and stated that the taxpayer was additionally liable to a penalty.

¶ 10.1–11.2

Although it discussed Section 79 as the mechanism for recovering admitted dues, it ultimately modified the FAA’s order and imposed a penalty.

¶ 10.1–11.2

05Holding

The Tribunal allowed the Department’s appeal and modified the FAA’s order to require payment of applicable interest and late fee, and imposed a penalty of ₹10,000, divided equally between Central and State tax (₹5,000 each).

¶ 11.2–15 · Form GST APL-04A, § I

The appeal was disposed of without an order as to costs.

¶ 11.2–15 · Form GST APL-04A, § I
GSTAT - ['Hyderabad']

Original Court PDF

Md Qamaruddin KhanvsSRI UMAMAHESHWARA INFRATECH

GSTAT - ['Hyderabad'] · November 06, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment