HomeGSTSection 129(3) Of GST Act | Madras High Court Quashes Detention Order...

Section 129(3) Of GST Act | Madras High Court Quashes Detention Order Passed Beyond Time Limit 

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Madras High Court quashes the detention order passed under Section 129(3) Of GST Act passed beyond the time limit. 

The bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has observed that in terms of Sub Section (3) to Section 129 order of detention in GST MOV-9 ought to have been made within seven days from the date of the issuance of show cause notice. The failure to adhere to the timelines stipulated in Section 129(3) of the GST Act, would result in vitiating the proceedings.

The petitioner has challenged the GST MOV-02 and GST MOV-07. 

The issue raised was whether the proceedings under Section 129(3) can be sustained in the absence of complying with the timeline mandated under Section 129(3). 

The petitioner submitted  that the goods were detained on 29.10.2024 and notice under Section 129(3) of the Act, 2017 in Form GST MOV-07 was issued on 29.10.2024. 

However, till date there is no order of detention made in Form GST MOV-09 which is in gross violation of the timeline stipulated under Section 129(3) of the Act. 

The petitioner submitted that in terms of Section 129 (3) order of detention in GST MOV-9 ought to have been made within seven days from the date of the issuance of show cause notice. The failure to adhere to the timelines stipulated in Section 129(3) of the GST Act, would result in vitiating the proceedings.

The court directed that the proceedings are liable to be set aside in as much as it is in contravention of the time lines stipulated in Section 129 of the GST Act. Consequently, a vehicle shall be released.

Read More: Income Tax Raid In Ex-BJP MLA’s House: Officials Found Crocodiles Apart From Gold & Cash

Case Details

Case Title: Madhesh @ Madesan Versus The State Tax Officer

Case No.: W.P.No. 36027 of 2024

Date: 21.12.2024

Counsel For Petitioner: M.R. Jothimanian

Counsel For Respondent: Amrita Dinakaran

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 25 May, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for May 25, 2026.GSTWHETHER COMPENSATION CAN BE TREATED...

Entire Sales Receipts Can’t Be Treated as Unexplained Income: ITAT Restricts Rs. 11.52 Crore Addition on Cash Deposits

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has granted significant relief...

ITAT Remands Mitsui Prime Transfer Pricing Dispute Back to AO, Flags Double Addition and Comparable Selection Issues

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has partly allowed the...

Supreme Court Announces Partial Court Working Days From June 1 to July 12, 2026; Summer Benches Notified

The Supreme Court of India has notified the schedule for partial Court working days...

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 25 May, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for May 25, 2026.GSTWHETHER COMPENSATION CAN BE TREATED...

Entire Sales Receipts Can’t Be Treated as Unexplained Income: ITAT Restricts Rs. 11.52 Crore Addition on Cash Deposits

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has granted significant relief...

ITAT Remands Mitsui Prime Transfer Pricing Dispute Back to AO, Flags Double Addition and Comparable Selection Issues

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has partly allowed the...