IK Building Solutions M.HARIHARAN, HEMALATHA R,U.C.KIRUTHEKA,RUKMANI VENUGOPALAN,SAMHITA SRINIVAS vs Commercial Tax Officer — WP/19578/2026

Case under Others Section 1. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 10th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA010722602026

e-Filing Number

19-03-2026

Filing Number

WP/53256/2026

Filing Date

23-Mar-2026

Registration No

WP/19578/2026

Registration Date

13-May-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Coram

Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

Tax/Tolls ( 150 )

Judicial Branch

WRITSECTION

Decision Date

10-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Others Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.IK Building Solutions M.HARIHARAN, HEMALATHA R,U.C.KIRUTHEKA,RUKMANI VENUGOPALAN,SAMHITA SRINIVAS

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Commercial Tax Officer

  2. 2.The Assistant Commissioner(ST)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar RamamoorthyView PDF

    Case Summary: WP No. 19578 of 2026 The Madras High Court partially allowed IK Building Solutions' writ petition challenging a tax order that imposed both late fee and penalty for delayed GSTR-9 filing. The court set aside the penalty portion of the order, holding that under GST law, penalty cannot be imposed under Section 125 after a late fee has already been levied, as both are penal in nature. The bank attachment was lifted subject to payment of the lawful late fee as ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/19578/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP No. 19578 of 2026 The Madras High Court partially allowed IK Building Solutions' writ petition challenging a tax order that imposed both late fee and penalty for delayed GSTR-9 filing. The court set aside the penalty portion of the order, holding that under GST law, penalty cannot be imposed under Section 125 after a late fee has already been levied, as both are penal in nature. The bank attachment was lifted subject to payment of the lawful late fee as ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case