Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is doing business in coconuts at Mahe, Pondicherry State. He is a registered dealer at Pondicherry, Exts. P1 and P2 are Certificates of Registration under the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Rules respectively. His turnover was determined by the Mahe authorities as evidenced by Ext. P3. He used to purchase coconuts from Mahe and send them to outside the State in lorry loads. He did so on 20-3-1982. The sale bill and delivery note accompanied the transport (Exts. P4 and P5). The Intelligence Officer, Sales fax Department suspected the genuineness of the transport and in exercise of the powers vested in him under S.29-A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and R.35-A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules initiated proceedings, evidenced by Exts. P10 to P12. The petitioner, offered security, evidenced by Exts. P13 to P15. In this Original Petition the petitioner assails Exts.10, P11 and P12 proceedings. He contends that S.29-A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and also R.35-A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules are unconstitutional, void and inoperative. There is a prayer to quash Exts. P10, P11 and P12. Other reliefs are also prayed for; 2. The respondents have filed a detailed counter-affidavit dated 3rd December, 1983. It is stated that as a result of the investigations made by the department, it came to light that pepper, ginger, coconuts etc. taxable at the last purchase point in this State, really purchased by a few persons like the petitioner at Tellicherry, in Kerala State, were transported across the State, in the name of fictitious or other persons in whose names certificates of registration were obtained at Mahe, so as to make it appear that the goods were purchased at Mahe and were being transported across the State. These were investigated and few cases were brought to book, when such clandestine transports were attempted. OP. Nos. 809/73,546/73, 547/73 and 538/72 filed by such persons impugning the action taken by the Intelligence Officers of this State, in intercepting of goods and proceeding further under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act were dismissed by this court. S.29-A as well as R.35-A are valid. It has been so held by a Division Bench of this court. The reasons stated to assail the aforesaid provisions of law and also Exts. P10, P11 and P12 are without substance. S.29-A as well as R.35-A are valid. It has been so held by a Division Bench of this court. The reasons stated to assail the aforesaid provisions of law and also Exts. P10, P11 and P12 are without substance. The Original Petition has no merits and deserves to be dismissed. 3. It is common ground that a Division Bench of this court in the decision reported in Aboobacker v. State of Kerala (1979-44 STC. 250) upheld the validity of S.29-A of the Act and R.35-A of the Rules Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.A. Mohammed, contended that certain aspects were not properly considered in the said decision and so the said decision requires reconsideration. Petitioner's counsel raised the following points:-(a) The power to seize is not incidental or ancillary to the power to levy tax on sale or purchase of goods, which alone is authorised under Schedule.7, List II, entry 54. (b) The validity of S.29 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act which is of similar import, came up before this court for consideration in Yogesh Trading Co. v. Intelligence Officer of Sales-tax (1970 KLT.154 FB ) : (26 STC. 46). This court held that S.29 (4) and (5) and R.35(5) to (12) & (15) are violative of Art.19(1) (f) & (g) and Art.301 of the Constitution of India. The State has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court from the aforesaid decision of this court. It is pending. The statement of objects and reasons to the introduction of S.29-A shows that the new provision was enacted since in the appeal filed from the decision in Yogesh Trading Company case (1970 KLT.154 (FB)), the Supreme Court did not grant stay. So, S.29-A is a colourable piece of legislation, (c) On the facts of this case, on a perusal of Exts. P1 and P2 (Registration Certificates obtained at Pondicherry by the petitioner) and Ext. P3 assessment order, it will be evident that the transport of the goods is bona fide and genuine and also inter-state in character and so S.29-A of the Act will not apply and so Exts. P10, P11 and P12 proceedings are without bona fides and unauthorised. I should state that the above contentions are without force. In Aboobacker v. State of Kerala (44 STC. P10, P11 and P12 proceedings are without bona fides and unauthorised. I should state that the above contentions are without force. In Aboobacker v. State of Kerala (44 STC. 250) a Division Bench of this court exhaustively considered all aspects arising in the matter and upheld S.29-A of the Act and R.35-A of the Rules. There is substantial difference between S.29 which came up for consideration in Yogesh Trading Company case (1970 KLT.154 FB) and S.29-A of the Act which was considered in Aboobacker's case (44 STC. 250). This difference was noticed by the court in the later decision (44 STC 250 at 258 & 260). It is too late in the day to contend that the power to seize the goods is not part of the incidental or ancillary power to levy sales-tax and to check evasion of the same. See Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. R.S.Uhaver (20 STC. 453 (SC.) at Page 468 & 469). As stated, S.29 and S.29-A are not of similar import. The language and import of the relevant provisions are materially different. The mere fact that one of the reasons stated for enacting S.29A of the Act is the failure to obtain stay in the appeal filed from Yogesh Trading Company case (1970 KLT.154 FB.), cannot render the new statutory provisions S. 29-A and R.35-A, a "colourable piece of legislation." The validity of the legislative measure should be tested in the light of its competence to enact the law. The wisdom or the policy of the legislature in enacting the measure is not open to scrutiny by the court. S.29-A and R.35-A are altogether new provisions. Their scope and effect are altogether and materially different from the statutory provisions considered in Yogesh Trading Company case (1970 KLT.154). A bare perusal of the provisions themselves will disclose this aspect. The plea that S.29-A and R.35-A are "colourable piece of legislation", is without-any foundation. As to whether the transport of the goods is from Mahe, as stated by the petitioner, or it is a case where the petitioner purchased the goods inside the State and made it appear as if the goods are being transported from Mahe, itself is a matter for investigation. The petitioner and Revenue join issue on this basic fact. As to whether the transport of the goods is from Mahe, as stated by the petitioner, or it is a case where the petitioner purchased the goods inside the State and made it appear as if the goods are being transported from Mahe, itself is a matter for investigation. The petitioner and Revenue join issue on this basic fact. Whether in this case, the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act will be attracted itself requires scrutiny and appraisal of very many facts and circumstances disclosed in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. In these state of affairs, it is not necessary at this stage, and in these proceedings, to consider whether S.29-A of the Act will apply in the case of inter-state sales. The basic facts themselves are in dispute. 4. Exts. P10, P11 and P12 are only notices and the petitioner has furnished security, evidenced by Exts. P13 to PI5 The enquiry with regard to the instant transport is still pending before the concerned statutory authority. It is for the petitioner to effectively raise the plea that S.29-A of the Act and R.35-A of the Rules will not apply to the instant transport, being "inter-state sales." and lead evidence in that behalf to show that Exts. P10 to P12 are illegal and unauthorised It is equally open to the petitioner to plead and prove in the proceedings initiated under Exts. P10 to P12 that there is no evasion of tax under the Kerala Act, either. When the very basic facts to determine the issues raised by the petitioner require scrutiny and assessment of evidence, and when proceedings are pending before the statutory authority in that behalf, it is not open to the petitioner to assail Exts.P10 to P12 notices in these proceedings or for this court to embark upon on an enquiry on those matters in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Government Pleader Mr. Divakaran Pillai is perfectly justified in stating that on this aspect of the matter, the Original Petition is premature since the enquiry initiated as per Exts. P10 to P12 is still pending. It is open to the petitioner to participate in those proceedings and get redressal for his grievances, if any. 5. No other point was raised in the O.P. The Original Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.