The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P5 notice and Ext.P7 determination order under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, detaining the goods and vehicle belonging to the petitioner, on the ground that, a verification of the documents that accompanied the goods showed that the consignor and consignee are two different entities with different GISTINs and the transaction in question was supposedly a stock transfer. The documentation is, therefore, found to be not in accordance with the prescription under the CGST Act and Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per Rule 55 of the CG & ST Rules, an invoice need not be generated wherever there is a transportation of goods for reasons other than by way of supply. The learned counsel was however not able to point out as to why the particular transportation had to be viewed as one other than by way of supply. It is her contention that the transaction between the parties was not a sale since there was no transfer of ownership of the goods to the consignee. I find, however, that the definition of supply under Section 7 is not confined to transactions of sale but includes transfer for other purposes also. Under such circumstances, I do not find the detention to be unjustified. However, I permit the petitioner to obtain a release of the vehicle and the goods from the 1st respondent on furnishing a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount determined in Ext.P7 order. The 1st respondent shall thereafter refer the matter for adjudication in terms of the SGST Act and Rules. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment, before the 1st respondent, for further action.

The Writ Petition is disposed as above.