GST Show Cause Notice Reply: Section 125 Penalty

One of my clients recently had a case which I am explaining below and if you are stuck in such similar situation, here is what to do.

Note: Due to attorney-client privilege, I cannot disclose complete case details or identify the actual parties involved. However, I am sharing the essential facts and legal approach so that if you find yourself in a similar situation, you can understand the available solutions and legal remedies.

TL;DR: A missed deadline does not close the file. A GST show cause notice reply can still be filed late, with a written request that the officer take it on record and grant a personal hearing. The ₹50,000 proposed under Section 125 is not automatically payable, and there is a real argument that a general penalty under Section 125 should not stack on top of the late fee already charged under Section 47 for the same default.

Nikhil Bansal shut the shutters of his electrical goods shop in Nagpur in November 2023. The proprietorship had never made money. He had taken a salaried job in Pune and stopped thinking about GST altogether. What he did not know was that returns were still being filed in the name of that dead business, quarter after quarter, by the chartered accountant he had once engaged.

The two had fallen out over unpaid fees. When the accountant finally called in June 2025, it was not to apologise. He wanted his old dues cleared, and he mentioned, almost in passing, that a notice had arrived.

The show cause notice was dated 28 April 2025. It proposed a penalty of ₹50,000 under Section 125 of the CGST Act for failure to file Form GSTR-3B, and gave Bansal until 13 May 2025 to respond. He had no portal credentials. He had never seen the notice. The deadline had gone by roughly five weeks.

A local general practitioner told him to ignore it, since the business was already dead. That advice was wrong. The client then approached the Chamber of Advocate Sudhir Rao. A reply was drafted with a formal condonation request, a reconciliation of the returns actually filed, proof of closure and the email trail with the accountant. Advocate Sudhir Rao's familiarity with GST adjudication helped keep the penalty from being confirmed in full.

Key Facts of the Case

• The proprietorship stopped operating in November 2023 and was never profitable at any point.
• Returns continued to be filed under the business's GSTIN after closure, which the registered person says happened without his knowledge or permission
• The GSTIN was never surrendered, and no cancellation of registration was applied for after the shop shut.
• The show cause notice is dated 28 April 2025 and proposed a penalty of ₹50,000 under Section 125 of the CGST Act.
• The reply date in the notice was 13 May 2025. Nothing was filed by then.
• The registered person says he held no portal credentials and received the notice only when his former accountant called him about unpaid fees in June 2025.
• A late reply with a condonation request was ultimately placed on record.

I should say at the outset that this account comes from one side. The accountant has not been heard, and the portal filing logs will tell their own story about who filed what and when. Where the two versions differ, the electronic record usually wins.

Can a GST show cause notice reply be filed after the last date?

Yes, it can be tendered. Whether it is taken on record is a separate question, and that is where the drafting matters.

There is no provision in the CGST Act that says a reply filed beyond the date mentioned in the notice is void. The notice fixes a date by which the officer would like to hear from you. It does not extinguish your right to be heard after that date. What it does is shift the burden onto you to explain the delay, in writing, and to ask specifically for two things: that the reply be taken on record, and that you be given a personal hearing.

Practically, a late reply works only if it is a real reply. A one-page letter saying "the business is closed, please drop the penalty" will be filed and forgotten. What the officer needs is the filing history pulled from the portal, period by period, showing what was filed, what was not, and what tax, if any, was involved in the periods that were missed. In this case, the reconciliation is exactly what created the opening: the notice alleged non-filing of GSTR-3B, but returns had been filed in the name of the GSTIN for part of the period. That gap between the allegation and the portal record is the case.

The condonation request

Ask for condonation in the first paragraph, not the last. Give the reason plainly — no portal access, notice not seen, former accountant holding credentials — and attach whatever supports it. In this matter the supporting material was the email trail with the accountant and proof that the business had stopped operating. Keep it factual. Officers read a lot of these and can tell the difference between an excuse and an explanation.

The personal hearing is a statutory right, not a favour

Section 75(4) of the CGST Act says that an opportunity of being heard shall be given to a person chargeable with tax or penalty where a written request is made, or where an adverse decision is contemplated. A written request for a hearing, made in the reply itself, is therefore not a request you are begging for. If the officer proposes to confirm a penalty without granting one, that is a ground you can take up in appeal.

What Section 125 does — and what it does not

Section 125 is the general penalty provision. It applies only where no penalty is separately provided for the same contravention under the Act. The words are important, because they mean Section 125 is a residual clause, not a first resort.

There is also a ceiling. Section 125 provides for a penalty which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees. A notice proposing ₹50,000 under that section alone therefore needs explaining. The most likely explanation is that the figure is the aggregate of CGST and SGST, each capped at ₹25,000, which is how penalties are commonly computed in a dual-GST notice. That is worth checking on the face of the notice before you draft anything, because if the arithmetic is wrong, the error should be pointed out in the reply rather than saved for appeal.

Late fee and penalty for the same default

Failure to furnish GSTR-3B already attracts a late fee under Section 47 — ₹100 per day per Act, subject to the statutory ceiling, with lower rates notified for nil returns. If the department's own case is that the default is late filing, the argument that a separate general penalty should not be heaped on top of the late fee for the same act is a legitimate one to make. I would not describe it as settled law. Orders on this point have gone both ways, and much depends on how the notice itself frames the contravention. But it belongs in the reply.

Section 126 is your other tool here. It lays down general disciplines on penalties and directs that a penalty not be imposed for a minor breach. The amount of tax involved in the missed periods will decide whether that argument is available to you at all.

"I never received the notice" — does that help?

It helps, but less than people expect, and you should know why before you rely on it.

Section 169 of the CGST Act lists the modes of service. Alongside registered post, speed post and email, it includes making the notice available on the common portal. In law, that is service. A notice uploaded to your GST portal dashboard is treated as delivered to you whether or not anyone logged in to look. This is why a notice travelling to an address you no longer use, on a portal you no longer open, is still a valid notice.

That does not make the point useless. It shifts the argument from "service was invalid" to "no effective opportunity was given," and it is the second argument that a late reply with a hearing request is built on. It is a due-process argument, not a technical knockout.

What should be done, step by step

• Get the portal record first. Before writing a word of reply, download the filing history for the GSTIN — every GSTR-1, GSTR-3B and annual return, with ARN numbers and dates. This is the single most useful document in the file.
• Recover or reset portal access. Credentials can usually be reset through the registered email or mobile number. If a former consultant holds them and will not release them, the jurisdictional officer can be asked in writing to update the registered contact details, with proof of identity and ownership. An authorisation letter revoking the consultant's access should go out simultaneously.
• Work out what is actually pending. Match the notice periods against the filing record. Where tax is genuinely payable, compute it. Where returns are simply unfiled, file them — late fee keeps running until you do.
• Apply for cancellation of registration if it has not been done. A GSTIN that nobody surrenders keeps generating return obligations and late fee. Form GST REG-16 is the route for voluntary cancellation. If the registration has already been cancelled, check the cancellation order and the revocation window under Section 30, which is short and runs from the date of the order.
• File the reply with the condonation request and the hearing request. Attach the reconciliation, the closure evidence, and the correspondence showing why the notice was not seen.
• Appear, if a hearing is granted. Carry the originals. Officers frequently narrow the penalty at this stage once the filing position is clear on paper.

On time: a reply like this is usually a few days of work once the portal record is in hand, and the officer's order may take weeks or months depending on the load on that jurisdiction. On cost, the honest answer is that it depends entirely on how far back the default runs and whether tax is disputed or only penalty. Do not ask for a figure before someone has seen the notice.

The accountant problem

This deserves a section of its own, because it recurs constantly. A consultant who is disengaged over unpaid fees sometimes keeps filing, sometimes stops filing without telling anyone, and sometimes retains the portal credentials after the relationship ends. Each of those produces a different mess.

Two things follow. First, get the access revoked in writing, now. A short letter by email and registered post, stating that the engagement has ended and that no further filings are authorised, protects you far more than a phone call would. Second, if the consultant filed returns after being disengaged, or filed anything you did not authorise, that is a separate grievance — against the consultant professionally, and potentially a factual point in the GST proceedings about who was responsible for what. I am deliberately not going further than that, because we have only one side of this particular dispute.

Where the case stands

The reply is on record with the condonation request. Whether the officer accepts the reconciliation, and how much of the proposed penalty survives, is not something I can predict, and I would not try. If an order has been served, the appeal window is three months from the date of communication to the Appellate Authority, extendable by one month, and the pre-deposit is worked out on the amount in dispute. That clock does not wait for a fresh consultation.

Older periods bring another option into play. For demand notices relating to the early GST years, there is a waiver scheme for interest and penalty where the tax is paid in full within the notified window. Eligibility, the financial years it covers and the last date have all been changed by notification more than once, so check the current position for your own notice rather than relying on anything you read about it last year.

What to send to the Chamber

If you are sitting on a notice you have not answered, do not wait for a tidy file. Send what you have:

• The show cause notice, in full, including any annexures — a photograph is fine.
• Its date of issue and the exact date by which the reply was due, if the notice states it.
• Whatever portal filing record you can pull — GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B acknowledgements, ARN numbers, dates. If you have no login, say so.
• A two-line note on who was handling the GST compliance and when that arrangement ended.
• Any correspondence with the former consultant, especially anything in writing about credentials or filing.
• Proof that the business stopped operating, if it did — closure intimation, surrender of a licence, electricity disconnection, anything dated.
• Any order that has already been passed, with the date it was communicated to you.

Send it to /contact-us or book a slot at /book. A notice with a reply date still running gets priority; a notice where an order has already come in gets priority too, because the appeal clock is moving. Everything else can wait its turn.

One honest note before you write in. If the returns were never filed and tax was collected on those supplies, there may be nothing to argue about the tax itself — only about the penalty, the late fee, and whether the amount has been correctly computed. A reply that concedes the tax and fights the penalty is often the stronger one. It also tends to be the one officers actually read.

Frequently Asked Questions