A penalty order passed beyond Section 129(3)’s seven-day limit is without jurisdiction.

The petitioner, owner of two goods vehicles, hired them to transport MS scrap from Assam to Bihar under tax invoices, e-way bills and consignment notes.

On 11 July 2025, State officers intercepted the vehicles; after physical verification, they detained the vehicles and goods under Section 129(1) of the CGST/WBGST Act on 14 July 2025.

Notices in FORM GST MOV-07 were served on 17 July 2025, fixing 24 July 2025 as the date for appearance.

The supplier’s separate challenge to its registration suspension and cancellation was later disposed of by the Gauhati High Court; that court did not stay the Section 129 proceedings.

On 15 January 2026, the second respondent made penalty orders under Section 129(3), which the petitioner challenged.

Whether the orders dated 15 January 2026 were passed within the time limit prescribed by Section 129(3) of the Act

Whether the pending Gauhati High Court proceedings or the availability of an appeal under Section 107 prevented the petitioner from obtaining writ relief

Section 129(3) requires the proper officer to issue notice within seven days of detention and pass an order within seven days of service of notice.

A statutory time limit is not suspended merely because related proceedings are pending before another court; a court order staying the relevant proceedings is required.

The Court relied on Kedia Enterprises v. State of Bihar, which treated the Section 129(3) time limit as clear and definite and set aside a delayed penalty order; Khatu Enterprises v. State of Gujarat, which held non-compliance with the statutory time limits fatal; and Satguru Impex v. State of Tripura, which emphasized avoiding unnecessary impediments to the movement of genuine goods and vehicles.

An alternative remedy does not bar a writ petition where the impugned order is without jurisdiction.

The MOV-07 notices were served on 17 July 2025, so the orders were required by 24 July 2025. Instead, they were made on 15 January 2026—175 days after the statutory period expired.

The respondents attributed the delay to the supplier’s Gauhati proceedings, but those proceedings did not involve the petitioner and no stay of the Section 129 proceedings had been granted; they therefore did not suspend the statutory deadline.

Applying the cited decisions, the Court held the delay fatal.

Because the orders were made beyond the officer’s statutory authority, the alternative appeal under Section 107 did not preclude writ intervention.

It set aside and quashed both orders dated 15 January 2026 and the corresponding penalty demands of Rs. 12,67,640 and Rs. 12,55,600.

The respondents were directed to release both vehicles within seven days of communication of the order, without requiring payment of the alleged duty; the order did not prevent otherwise permissible proceedings against the supplier or recipient.

No order as to costs was made.