Limitation for issuance of notice and order under section 129(3) GST: delayed upload and no hearing lead to quashing of order

Challenge concerned issuance and validity of notices and an order under section 129 of the GST Act where Rule 142(5) requires uploading of FORM GST 07. The court found the order and MOV-7/MOV-9 notice were uploaded belatedly (uploaded a month after purported service) and no personal hearing was afforded, rendering the ex parte issuance procedurally infirm; accordingly the notice and order were quashed and set aside for failure of timely electronic service upload and absence of hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the show cause notice in FORM GST MOV-7 and the order in FORM GST MOV-9 dated 25.08.2025 are invalid for failure to comply with the time limits under Section 129(3) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and related portal-upload requirements. (ii) Whether the impugned order is vitiated for not affording personal hearing before passing the order.

Issue (i): Whether the notice and order comply with the time limits and mandatory upload/service requirements prescribed by Section 129(3) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 142(5) of the GST Rules, 2017.

Analysis: The detention occurred on 19.08.2025 and FORM GST MOV-06 was issued on 22.08.2025. The petitioner paid tax and penalty on 25.08.2025. The respondents admit that the impugned order in FORM GST MOV-09 was uploaded on the portal only on 27.09.2025, after a delay of about one month. The affidavit-in-reply is silent on compliance with the seven-day communication/upload requirement under Section 129(3). Documentary discrepancies exist as to signatures and the prescribed format of FORM MOV-7; the transporter has stated signatures were taken on blank papers. Rule 142(5) mandates uploading of the order; no satisfactory explanation for the belated upload is furnished.

Conclusion: In favour of the Assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order is invalid for being passed without affording personal hearing to the petitioner.

Analysis: The respondents concede that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided before passing the order under Section 129(3). The procedural requirement of hearing before imposing penalty and passing the order is not complied with and the record shows the order was issued ex parte. The absence of personal hearing, combined with defects in service and uploading, undermines the validity of the notice and order.

Conclusion: In favour of the Assessee.

Final Conclusion: The show cause notice in FORM GST MOV-7 and the order in FORM GST MOV-9 dated 25.08.2025 are quashed and set aside on the grounds of non-compliance with statutory time limits, upload/service requirements and failure to afford personal hearing; the writ petition is allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-compliance with the time limits and mandatory communication/upload requirements under Section 129(3) read with Rule 142(5), together with failure to afford personal hearing before passing an order, renders the show cause notice and order invalid.

---