In depth analysis of Section 125
of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017.
This
section reads as “125.
Any person, who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or any rules made
thereunder for which no penalty is separately provided for in this Act, shall
be liable to a penalty which may extend to twenty five thousand rupees”. It is
after careful thought that this section has been enacted by the legislature in
order to cover abnormal situations where there is no specified penalty or late
fee on a particular contravention. Accordingly,
the section is not uniformly applicable every where but only for contravention
of any section or rule for which no penalty is separately provided. This gives
the meaning that late fee as well as Section 125 penalty are mutually exclusive and whenever late fee is leviable,
Section 125 is not applicable.
The penalty
amount specified is only the maximum amount and not the specified amount of
25,000 itself. The words may extend to
twenty five thousand rupees convey the meaning that for minor contraventions or
inadvertent errors the penalty may be as low as Rs.1,000/- as per the
discretion of the adjudication officer. However, I have not come across even a
single case where the penalty is less than Rs.25,000/-. The worst part is when
there is only one contravention by the taxpayer, the maximum penalty must be
Rs.25,000/- only and not Rs.50,000/- as almost all officers all over India
impose uniformly by invoking both CGST as well as SGST separately, though the
contravention is only once but not twice.
This aspect has
come to light due to the fact that a taxpayer was aggrieved by this dual
penalty and preferred a writ before the jurisdictional high court, though the
cost involved is much higher than the relief got amount of Rs.25,000/-. This
aspect on penalty requires wide spread publication so that the tax officials
stop levying impermissible penalty and the taxpayer ends up paying only a
maximum of Rs.25,000/- and not Rs.50,000/-.
A taxpayer in
Faizabad city was issued with demand order on 28/12/2022 imposing a penalty of
25,000 each under CGST as well as SGST acts simultaneously. The taxpayer
preferred the first appeal which was rejected on limitation ground on 15/10/2025. The taxpayer then preferred the writ before the Allahabad High
court.
In
one of their finest judgements, the Allahabad High Court on 02/04/2026 passed
an order in the matter of Shri Vinayak Enterprises, Faizabad Vs. State of U P
and two others as reported in 2026 (5) TMI 1573 where the high court held that
maximum penalty is Rs.25,000/- only. The operative portion in para 4 reads as
“4. Considering the mandate of provisions of Section 125 of the Act, the
imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under the CGST as well as under the SGST
is wholly unjustified, as such, the order dated 28.12.2022 is set aside. As the
main order has been set aside, consequential appellate order dated 15.10.2025
is also set aside”.
Any
section, in any statue is enacted only after careful thought and each and every
word used in the section signifies how it has to be interpreted. At the time of
drafting this section, the legislature has considered the quantum of offence in
to consideration and gave a loud and clear message that for minor offences or
where the offences are due to lack of awareness only but not with any intention
to violate any provisions, the penalty may be lower than Rs.25,000/- as the
words used are may extend to. However, keeping only the collection as the sole
objective, officers across all states levy only the maximum stipulated amount
in all cases even for minor and procedural lapses which have no bearing on tax
or ITC. This penalty is levied in many cases over and above late fee which is
impermissible. The taxpayer have no choice to avoid this payment as the issue
is likely to be settled only at GSTAT level in the taxpayer’s favour for which
cost of litigation is much higher than the stipulated penalty.
The
High Court has remanded the matter for fresh consideration of penalty in line
with the above observations of the high court.
The
tax officers all over India must come forward to start imposing only one
penalty under section 125 and also the penalty need not be the maximum
stipulated amount uniformly in all
cases. The penalty may depend up on the nature of contravention. Awareness is a must amongst all tax
professionals on excessive and undue imposition of penalty under section 125 so
as to help the taxpayer to pay only the required amount as stipulated in law.
Let us hope that we do not come across cases of imposition of penalty which is
more than the permissible amount as correctly observed by the Allahabad High
court.