Mandatory penalty order after reply under goods detention law is required before penalty collection can be sustained.

Section 129(3) requires more than a detention notice: the authority must pass a reasoned order after considering the taxpayer's reply before penalty can be sustained. Where goods and conveyance were detained, the taxpayer disputed the allegation, and payment was made only to secure release while reserving appellate rights, the payment could not be treated as voluntary acceptance of liability. In the absence of the mandatory confirming order recording reasons under section 129(1), the penalty collection lacked legal authority and was unsustainable. The taxpayer was entitled to refund of the amount paid, with interest and costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty collected for detention of goods under section 129 could be sustained in the absence of a confirming order passed after considering the taxpayer's reply, and whether such collection was lawful when made to secure release of the goods and conveyance.

Analysis: Section 129(3) requires not only issuance of notice specifying the penalty payable, but also a subsequent order within the prescribed time after considering the reply and recording reasons for either clause (a) or clause (b) of section 129(1). The record showed that the goods were detained, a notice was issued, and the taxpayer furnished a reply disputing the allegation. The taxpayer later paid the penalty only to obtain release of the goods and vehicle, expressly reserving the right to challenge the matter in appeal. That payment could not be treated as a voluntary acceptance of liability. In the absence of the mandatory order confirming the penalty and justifying its levy, the collection lacked legal authority.

Conclusion: The penalty collection was unlawful and could not be sustained. The taxpayer was entitled to refund of the amount paid with interest and costs.

---