Coercive recovery during GST searches is restrained pending scrutiny, preserving normal business operations and requiring adherence to investigation g...
COVID-19 limitation exclusion and destination-specific e-way bills govern revisional timelines and penalties for undocumented third-party plywood deli...
Questions arising from miscellaneous application orders cannot challenge unaltered Tribunal findings, leaving the original order separately challengea...
Section 129(3) of the CGST/KGST Act imposes a mandatory seven-day period, measured from service of notice, for issuing a detention-penalty order concerning a transit-document discrepancy. The term "shall" requires strict compliance because the provision authorises coercive detention and seizure; the absence of an express consequence for delay does not make the limit directory. An order passed after the prescribed period is illegal and without jurisdiction, with consequential setting aside of the penalty and appellate orders and release of the bank guarantee.
Section 129(3) of the CGST/KGST Act imposes a mandatory seven-day period, measured from service of notice, for issuing a detention-penalty order concerning a transit-document discrepancy. The term "shall" requires strict compliance because the provision authorises coercive detention and seizure; the absence of an express consequence for delay does not make the limit directory. An order passed after the prescribed period is illegal and without jurisdiction, with consequential setting aside of the penalty and appellate orders and release of the bank guarantee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
