The petitioner, a partnership firm, purchased certain machinery in Chennai and was transporting it. On 20th July 2018, the respondent authority intercepted the vehicle at Valayar Check Post. Though the driver produced a copy of the e-way bill, he did not carry with him the original or duplicate invoice. The respondent ordered physical inspection of the goods and documents, and eventually issued Ext.P7 proceedings, besides detaining the goods. Questioning the respondent’s action, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. Indeed, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act. Nevertheless, the petitioner has agreed to provide the Bank guarantee as mandated under Rule 140 of the CGST Rules and to have the goods released, subject to the departmental proceedings now initiated through Ext.P7.

4. In response to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that if the petitioner is willing to provide the Bank guarantee for the value of the goods as estimated in Ext.P7, the respondent has no objection to release the goods. She has also submitted that the Department can as well proceed under Ext.P7 and conclude the proceedings.

5. Under these circumstances, I hold that the respondent will release the petitioner’s goods on its providing the Bank guarantee for the value of the goods as mentioned in Ext.P7. Thereafter, the authorities may proceed further, in accordance with law.