Statutory time limits in GST detention proceedings must be strictly followed; hearing requirements cannot extend limitation.
Section 129 of the CGST Act requires detention notices and final orders to be issued strictly within the statutory timeline. The text states that the notice must be served within seven days of detention, and the subsequent order must follow within the further period allowed by the statute. It also explains that the opportunity of hearing does not enlarge that time limit. On that basis, the detention penalty order was treated as barred by limitation and set aside, with consequential release of the vehicle and goods.
Issues: Whether the order imposing penalty for detention of the vehicle and goods was liable to be set aside as having been passed beyond the statutory period prescribed for issuance of notice and passing of the final order.
Analysis: The detention proceedings were governed by the time limits under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The notice had to be issued within seven days of detention and the order had to follow within the further period prescribed by the statute. The Court found that the impugned order was not saved by the explanation offered and that the matter was covered by the earlier declaration relied upon before it. The opportunity of hearing contemplated by the provision had to operate within the statutory timeline and did not extend the period for passing the order beyond what the statute permitted.
Conclusion: The penalty order was held to be barred by limitation and was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the detention penalty order was quashed with consequential release of the vehicle and goods.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute prescribes a specific time frame for notice and final order in detention proceedings, the authority must act strictly within that period and cannot extend it by treating the hearing requirement as enlarging the statutory limit.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
