Permender Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

What happened

The petitioner hired out two goods vehicles, WB172949 and WB172944, to a transporter on 9 July 2025 to carry MS scrap from a consignor in Guwahati to a consignee in Purnea, Bihar, under e-tax invoices and e-way bills valid to 12 July 2025. On 11 July 2025 officers of the Bureau of Investigation (North Bengal) intercepted the vehicles at Mohitnagar and recorded statements, and physical verification followed on 13 July. The respondents found that the supplier's registration had been suspended with effect from 10 July 2025 and a Guwahati report said the supplier was non-functional at its declared place of business, so they treated the invoices and e-way bills as invalid and held that the movement contravened section 68 and rules 138 and 138A. The vehicles were detained on 14 July 2025 under section 129(1), notices proposing penalty were issued and served on 17 July 2025 with appearance by 24 July 2025, and the penalty orders were passed on 15 January 2026.

Questions before the court

• Were the demand orders passed within the time fixed by section 129(3), and can the High Court intervene despite the appeal under section 107?

Why the court ruled this way

The Court held that section 129 sets two time limits: the notice within seven days of detention and the order within seven days of service of the notice. The notices were issued in time, but the orders were passed 175 days after the period ended on 24 July 2025, so they were barred by limitation and without jurisdiction (paragraphs 16 and 17). It referred to the Gujarat High Court Division Bench in Khatu Enterprises, which held non-compliance with the time limits fatal to the detention, and to the Tripura High Court Division Bench in Satguru Impex, which stressed that the Revenue must act sensibly where the parties are genuine (paragraphs 24 and 25). It rejected the State's objection of maintainability: an alternative remedy does not bar a writ where the order is without jurisdiction, and relegating the petitioner to an appeal would serve no purpose (paragraph 26).

Controlling point

Penalty orders under section 129 passed beyond the seven-day period after service of the notice are void for want of jurisdiction, and the vehicles are to be released.

Order and next steps

The two orders of 15 January 2026 in Form GST MOV-09 were quashed as barred by limitation under section 129(3), including the penalty of ₹12,67,640 for WB172949 and ₹12,55,600 for WB172944. The respondents must release both vehicles within seven days of communication of the order without insisting on payment of any alleged duty. The order does not prevent proceedings, if otherwise permissible, against the supplier or recipient of the goods. There was no order as to costs.

Practical implications

A vehicle owner or transporter whose conveyance is detained should track the seven-day periods for the notice and the order and, if the order is late, file a writ citing this ruling; the penalty orders and release of the vehicle may follow.

Limits of this ruling

• The Court decided only the limitation point and did not examine whether the supplier's suspended registration made the invoices invalid; proceedings against the supplier or the recipient remain possible.