No, the Honorable Patna High Court in the case of Pawan Carrying Corporation v. State of Bihar [Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3499 of 2024 dated 29.02.2024] held that the proper officer must have issued the notice within seven days of detention or seizure of goods or conveyance. Section 129 starts with the Non-obstante clause and there is no reason to wait for an application by the driver of the vehicle for the verification of the goods when the vehicle is intercepted. Lastly, the order should be passed within seven days of the service of notice of such detention or seizure of goods or conveyance. The Honorable Patna High Court observed that the vehicle was intercepted on 22.12.2023, and there was no reason for the verification of the goods to wait for an application by the driver of the vehicle. Further noted that even if the detention is stated to be on 28.12.2023, the notice was only issued on 05.01.2024, after the seven days provided in Section 129(3) of CGST Act. Further, when the Petitioner had required for time on the seventh day from the date of serving of notice, nothing prevented the Respondent from rejecting the said prayer and passing the order, especially where the matter is kept pending, the proceedings would be barred by limitation. The Honorable Court held that the limitation is clear and definite. The facts of the case indicate that the Respondents did not act in accordance with the Section 129 of the CGST Act. Therefore, there is no reason to sustain the demand raised. Hence, the impugned Order passed for the detention of the vehicles was set aside and directed the Respondents to release the vehicle with the goods immediately.
Author’s Comments:
As soon as the goods or conveyance is seized, an application under section 129(1)(c) must be preferred to the intercepting officer to seek the provisional release by furnishing security in MOV-08 and seek the release in MOV-05.
As per Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, the proper officer detaining or seizing goods or conveyance shall issue a notice within seven days of such detention or seizure, specifying the penalty payable, and thereafter, pass an order within seven days from the date of service of such notice, for payment of penalty under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1). If the notice is not issued within the specified time limits under section 129(3), then the whole proceedings are tainted and without the authority of law.
Orders were issued on the same subject matter in the case of Udhayan Steels Private Limited v. Deputy Tax Officer (Int.) & Anr. [W.P. No. 34268 of 2022 dated 28.12.2022] by the Honorable Madras High Court.
Share this content: