Directory time limit under GST detention law: delay does not void proceedings, but conditional release may still be granted.

Under section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, the time limits for issuing notice and passing the penalty order are directory, not mandatory, because the provision is procedural, serves expedition and discipline, and contains no express consequence for delay. The notice and order were treated as substantially compliant where notice issued within seven days of interception and the order followed on the eighth day. On the facts, the detention proceedings were not invalidated for limitation, but conditional release of the goods and vehicle against security was granted, leaving other statutory remedies open.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the time limits in section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for issuing notice and passing the penalty order are mandatory or directory; (ii) whether, on the facts, the detention and penalty proceedings warranted interference and release of goods and vehicle against security.

Issue (i): whether the time limits in section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for issuing notice and passing the penalty order are mandatory or directory.

Analysis: The statutory text was read in the light of settled principles that the use of the word "shall" is not conclusive. The decisive factors were the object of the amendment, the absence of any express consequence for breach, and the procedural nature of the prescription. The provision was held to be intended to secure expedition and discipline in detention proceedings, not to create an inflexible jurisdictional bar. Non-compliance may invite administrative or judicial scrutiny, but it does not by itself render the proceedings time barred.

Conclusion: The time limits in section 129(3) are directory and not mandatory.

Issue (ii): whether, on the facts, the detention and penalty proceedings warranted interference and release of goods and vehicle against security.

Analysis: The notice was issued within seven days of interception, and the order was passed on the eighth day after notice. That was treated as substantial compliance with the directory timeline. On the merits, the goods were traceable to a registered dealer and the petitioner was held entitled to release of the goods and vehicle against deposit of an amount equal to the penalty under protest, leaving other statutory remedies open.

Conclusion: Interference with the proceedings on limitation was declined, but relief for release of the goods and vehicle against security was granted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings under section 129 were not invalidated for breach of the seven-day timeline, yet the petitioner obtained conditional release of the goods and vehicle, so the writ petition was allowed only in part.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural time-limit in a fiscal detention provision, where no consequence of non-compliance is expressly provided, is ordinarily directory and breach of that timeline does not automatically nullify the proceedings.

---