Raj Sanjaybhai Tanna VS Union Of India

This petition, filed by two individuals, revolves around the constitutional validity of section 47 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (referred to as CGST Act). The petitioners consist of Petitioner No.1, who is identified as a practicing advocate primarily focused on taxation, and Petitioner No.2, described as a tax consultant without practicing advocacy. The crux of their challenge is aimed at section 47 of the CGST Act, which deals with the imposition of late fees for filing returns after the specified deadline.

Section 47(1) of the CGST Act stipulates that any registered individual failing to furnish details regarding outward or inward supplies or returns within the prescribed timeframe will be subject to a late fee. The petitioners contest the constitutionality of this provision, alleging it exceeds the boundaries set by the constitution.

Their petition, framed in the public interest, raises concerns about the legality of imposing penalties under section 47. It questions whether such penalties align with constitutional principles and whether they unduly burden taxpayers. The petitioners, through their legal expertise and knowledge of tax matters, argue that the current framework of late fees outlined in section 47 infringes upon constitutional rights.

By challenging the validity of section 47, the petitioners seek judicial review and potential redressal to ensure that the imposition of late fees under the CGST Act complies with constitutional norms and does not impose disproportionate hardships on taxpayers. Their endeavor reflects broader concerns within the legal and taxation communities regarding the interpretation and application of tax laws in alignment with constitutional principles.

This petition, filed in the public interest, involves two petitioners. Petitioner No.1 is a practicing advocate primarily dealing with taxation matters, while Petitioner No.2 is a tax consultant, though not practicing as an advocate. The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 47 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (referred to as CGST), alleging it to be beyond the constitutional authority. Section 47 of the CGST Act deals with the imposition of late fees for the delayed filing of returns.

Under Sub-section (1) of Section 47, it is stipulated that any registered individual who fails to furnish details of outward or inward supplies or returns by the due date is liable to pay a late fee of one hundred rupees for each day of delay, with a maximum cap set at five thousand rupees. Sub-section (2) of Section 47 further mandates that failing to furnish returns as required under Section 44 by the due date incurs a late fee of one hundred rupees per day, with the maximum fee calculated at a quarter per cent of the individual’s turnover.

The primary arguments put forth by the petitioners revolve around the contention that the government’s imposition of penalties… [Here, the summary would continue to outline the main contentions and arguments presented by the petitioners against the constitutionality of Section 47, as well as any counter-arguments or legal precedents that may be relevant.

The petition at hand, presented by two individuals, one a practicing advocate primarily dealing with taxation matters, and the other a tax consultant, challenges the constitutional validity of section 47 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (referred to as ‘CGST’ hereafter), contending it to be ultra vires the constitution. Section 47 of the CGST Act deals with the imposition of late fees for filing returns beyond the stipulated time frame.

Under subsection (1) of section 47, it is mandated that any registered individual failing to furnish details of outward or inward supplies or returns within the due date shall incur a late fee of one hundred rupees per day of delay, up to a maximum of five thousand rupees. Subsection (2) of the same section extends this provision to individuals failing to furnish returns as required under section 44, subjecting them to a late fee of one hundred rupees per day of delay, capped at a quarter per cent of their turnover.

The primary argument put forth by the petitioners is that the government is essentially attempting to levy penalties disguised as late fees. They assert that this practice deprives dealers of their valuable right to appeal and their ability to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay in filing returns within the prescribed deadline. The petitioners draw attention to the fact that in prior laws, which have been repealed by statutes enacted under the new GST regime, such charges were explicitly categorized as penal in nature.

Furthermore, the petition highlights various practical challenges faced by taxpayers in filing returns, including technical issues such as malfunctions of the official portal, which often hinder the uploading of returns within the stipulated time frame. These difficulties compound the burden on taxpayers and underscore the necessity for a fair and reasonable approach to late fees.

In essence, the petitioners argue for a reconsideration of the classification and imposition of late fees under section 47 of the CGST Act, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that respects taxpayers’ rights and acknowledges the practical challenges they encounter in complying with regulatory requirements.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: