Section 129(3) was held to be directory as to the seven-day...

Section 129(3) was held to be directory as to the seven-day timelines for issuing notice and passing the penalty order, because the statute uses procedural deadlines to secure expedition but does not make delay fatal to jurisdiction or validity. The Court rejected the view that non-compliance automatically renders detention proceedings time-barred, and found no basis to interfere on limitation where the notice was issued within seven days and the penalty order followed on the eighth day, amounting to substantial compliance. The petitioner, being a registered dealer when the transaction began, was treated as the bona fide owner and was entitled to release of the detained goods and vehicle on deposit, under protest, of an amount equal to the penalty, with liberty to challenge the penalty order separately.