TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the EWB was for a different vehicle, different value, and wrong route. Physical verification was conducted in presence of driver. Actual goods found was 9 varieties of cigarettes valued at Rs. 19,25,406.13, completely mismatching the invoice/EWB. Hence, the Order of Detention was passed. Further, on 4-8-2020, Notice in MOV-07 was issued proposing Tax & Penalty totalling Rs. 39,21,831.06 under Section 129(3). On 23-9-2020, Notice u/s 70 issued for adjudication hearing fixed on 05.10.2020. On 22-3-2021, State Tax Officer (Intelligence) passed speaking Adjudication Order confirming demand of Rs. 39,21,831.06 in MOV-09. 3.0 The Ld Advocate for the appellant submits that the MOV-07 was issued on 4-8-2020, and the Order in MOV-09 was issued on 22-3-2021 under Section 129(3) of the CGST / KGST Act, 2017, after a lapse of more than 6 months. He also submits that due to Covid-19 lockdown in Aluva Municipality declared on 30.07.2020, they unloaded the goods at a 'small godown' in North Paravur and transshipped part of the cargo into LMV KL 07 BY 5013 to move to Angamaly along with a 'Delivery Challan'. He also submits that the e-way bill could not be prepared immediately because the vehi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent has raised this contention that this issue is raised for the first time before GSTAT and was never raised before the First Appellate Authority. Before we delve into the issue of the limitation, we would answer the question of raising this issue for the first time by the appellant as alleged. As regards the contention of the Ld Joint Commissioner that the appellant has raised this ground of limitation of 7 days for issuing Order under Section 129(3) of the CGST / SGST Act, 2017, for the first time before the GSTAT, without raising it before the First Appellate Authority, we find that it is a fact that the notice for detention MOV-07 was issued on 4-8-2020, and the Order for penalty in MOV-09 was issued on 22-3-2021, and not within the prescribed mandatory 7 days under Section 129(3) ibid. We find that since this is an undeniable fact, which is on record, bringing out the same by the appellant before us, does not make it an additional ground made for the first time, which was not raised or discussed before the first appellate authority. Hence, the contention of the Ld Joint Commissioner is not correct as the this fact was always on record, and the first appellate authority wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er sub-section (3) without giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard. (5) On payment of amount referred in sub-section (1), all proceedings in respect of the notice specified in sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be concluded. (6) Where the person transporting any goods or the owner of such goods fails to pay the amount of penalty under sub-section (1) within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order passed under sub-section (3), the goods or conveyance so detained or seized shall be liable to be sold or disposed of otherwise, in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed, to recover the penalty payable under sub-section (3): Provided that the conveyance shall be released on payment by the transporter of penalty under sub-section (3) or one lakh rupees, whichever is less: Provided further that where the detained or seized goods are perishable or hazardous in nature or are likely to depreciate in value with passage of time, the said period of fifteen days may be reduced by the proper officer." 5.3 It is quite evident that the Section 129 deals with detention, seizure and release of goods and conve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ory in nature. 6.0 We find support in the decisions of various High Courts to our observations in the judgements below: 6.1 In the case of Mohd Hazzak Lohar & Others vs Commissioner of State Tax, J&K cited in 2026 (7) TMI 1769 - J&K and Ladakh HC, it is held that: . . . 17. We are, thus, inclined to concur with a view taken by various High Courts and the High Court of Gujarat that the timelines under Section 123 of the Act are mandatory. This is so primary for the following reasons: (i) The provision regulates exercise of coercive statutory power; (ii) It protects valuable primary rights; (iii) The legislature has prescribed timelines using the word "shall"; (iv) Treating timelines in Section 129(3) as directory would defeat the legislative purpose of preventing prolonged detention and seizure of goods, conveyance or documents of the transporter or the assessee; (v) The absence of express consequences of a mandatory provision is not always decisive. (vi) The legislative intent, object of provision and the nature of right affected are governing tests. (vii) Whenever the statute authorizes coercive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt case, there is violation of provisions of Section 129(3) of the CGST Act as the order dated 19.11.2025 has been passed beyond the period of 7 (seven) days from the date of service of notice. In present case, the notice in Form GST MOV-07 was issued on 10.11.2025 and the order dated 19.11.2025 and hence the present petition succeeds only on this sole ground. The impugned order in Form GST MOV-09 dated 19.11.2025, notice in Form GST MOV-07 dated 10.11.2025 under section 129 of the CGST/GGST Act, 2017 and order of detention in Form GST MOV-06 dated 09.11.2025 under section 129(1) of the CGST/GGST Act, 2017 are quashed and set aside. 15. Rule is made absolute. No order as to cost. 6.3 In the case of Khatu Enterprises vs State of Gujarat cited in 2025 (10) TMI 1341 - Gujarat HC it is held that: "11. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the facts of the case, it would be germane to refer to provisions of Section 129(3), which reads as under: "129(3): The proper officer detaining or seizing goods or conveyances shall issue notice within seven days of such detention or seizure, specifying the penalty payable, and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterprises v. Assistant/Deputy Commissioner (ST) 2023 (70) G.S.T.L. 277 (Mad.) = [2022] 143 taxmann.com 201 (Mad.) dated 29-8-2022 in W.P.No.22646 of 2022. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that no appeals have been filed against the aforesaid orders passed by two learned Single Judges of this Court and therefore, the said orders have also attained finality. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned detention order dated 31-10-2022 as well as the impugned consequential order dated 10-11-2022 are hereby quashed and the writ petitions are allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to release the detained goods and conveyances of the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 6.5 In the case of Pawan Carrying Corporation vs State of Bihar, cited in (2024) 16 Centax 405 (Pat.) it is held that, 7. Be that as it may, even if the detention is stated to be on 28.12.2023, the notice was only issued on 05.1.2024, after the seven day period provided in section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th September, 2024, by mail sent to e-mail address of petitioner on fulfilling the requirement under section 169(1)(c). Communication of the order was complete the next day, when it was uploaded in the portal as in compliance with requirement under section 169(1)(d). 5. To us it appears the print of sent mail is doubtful because petitioner filed appeal on Form GST APL-01 giving date of order as 27th September, 2024. The appeal was successfully uploaded. There is also said letter dated 18th October, 2024 written by Assistant Commissioner of State Tax to petitioner, in which there is clear mention of 27th September, 2024 as date of the order. Furthermore, sub-rule (5) in rule 142 of Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 requires summary of the order issued, inter alia, under section 129, to be uploaded electronically in Form GST DRC-07. There is no dispute that this was done on 27th September, 2024. 6. In view of aforesaid, impugned order is found to have been made on the 8th day from date of service of the notice specifying penalty. It does not meet the requirement under sub-section (3) of section 129. It is therefore liable to be and is set aside and quashed. ....