Petitioner seeks a direction to release the bank guarantee furnished by it after finding that the detention of goods under section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short the Act), is illegal Through an amendment, petitioner has challenged the final order under section 129(3) issued in Form MOV-09, imposing a tax of Rs.27,540/- and an equivalent amount as penalty Petitioner has a valid GST registration and carries on the business in electrical contract works. It is pleaded that, in connection with the work of a hospital at Assam, some goods were transported through a vehicle after paying the required tax. During the course of transportation from Ernakulam, the goods were intercepted by the first respondent, who detained the goods under section 129 of the Act on noticing an irregularity in the e-way bill. Though the goods were being transported on 02-03-2021 (2nd March, 2021) the invoice mentioned the date as 03.02.2021 (3rd February, 2021). There was thus a discrepancy in the date on the invoice. According to the petitioner, the error occurred due to the default computer formatting system. Instead of day-month-year (dd-mm-yyyy) formatting for the Indian system, the computer-generated bill provided for a month-day-year (mm-dd-yyyy) format. As a result, instead of 02-03-2021, the invoice bill mentioned the date as 03-02-2021. Due to the irregularity in the invoice, the goods were detained and tax and penalty was demanded. Petitioner pleaded that since the goods were required urgently, petitioner was compelled to obtain release of the goods by furnishing bank guarantee and according to the petitioner, unless the bank guarantee is released, petitioner would be put to great prejudice It was submitted that the default formatting system in the computer which generated the invoice as “mm-ddyyyy” instead of the format adopted in India as “dd-mm-yyyy” was the cause of mistake and that for such an inconsequential and minor mistake, petitioner ought not to be subjected to such huge liabilities