Judgment :- Paripoornan, J. The O.P. is posted before this Bench by aji order of reference by Chittur Sankaran Nair, J. by order dated 10-4-1991. The centre of controversy is whether the check post authorities are empowered to detain consignment's at the check post on the ground of under-valuation of the goods. In this O.P. the challenge is against Exts.P2 and P4. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the 2nd respondent to refund the security deposit, collected from the petitioner-firm as per Ext.PS. There is also a very ambitious prayer in the O.P. to the effect that a direction should be issued to the 2nd respondent, not to detain the petitioner's goods, in relation to which, sales tax has been paid to the appropriate assessing authority, at Walayar check post, on the ground of undervaluation. The petitioner is dealing in hides and skin at Quilon and Trivandrum, a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (in short, the act) and the Central Sales Tax Act. It is stated that the petitioner purchased 720 hides as per purchase bills dated 19-1-1991 to 11-3-1991 locally. They were intended to be delivered to its Head Office at Erode on 15-3-1991. Before transporting the goods, the petitioner took care to send a letter, dated 12-3-1991 to the 1st respondent, the assessing authority of the petitioner-firm, staling the details of the proposed transfer of goods from Quilon to Erode. The details of the transfer bills and the delivery notes were also given. The petitioner firm also entrusted a demand draft in the sum of Rs.6,363/-, being the tax payable in respect of the goods, which is being transported to Erode. The 1st respondent (assessing authority) accepted the demand draft and allowed the transfer of goods. The letter addressed by the petitioner to the 1st respondent is Ext.P1. The delivery note No. 840106, dated 13-3-1991, wherein a specific endorsement has been made by the assessing authority, the Sales Tax Officer, Trivandrum, for having received the tax of Rs.6363/-, paid as per demand draft on 11-3-1991, was produced before us at the time of the hearing of the O.P. The Photostat copy, so produced before us, was shown to the Government Pleader also. In the said delivery note in form 26, all details are given, including the bill amount of Rs.1,59,060/-, the name of the consignor and his address, the place to which it is consigned, the bill number, and also a reference that it is a transfer to the Head Office at Erode. The goods were transported through Walayar check post on 14-3-1991. The Inspector of Sales Tax Check Post at Walayar, on checking the goods, mentioned in the delivery note, transported in lorry No.TDI 1219, found that the goods are not supported by proper documents as required by S.29(2)(a)of the Act. Therein he had referred to the nature of the goods, the number, the name of the consignor and the consignee, the document produced, namely, the delivery note, No.840106 dated 13-3-1991, etc. The Sales Tax Inspector was of the view that the value stated in the delivery note is too low when compared to the prevailing market rate. He estimated the market rate of the goods at Rs.2,16,000/- and held that there is undervaluation to the extent of Rs.56,940/-. Two reasons were given for detaining the goods. (1) The value of the goods noted in the delivery note is too low, when compared to the prevailing market rate, and (2) Bona fides of the transport and the attempt of evasion of tax suspected. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 objection before the Inspector, Sales Tax Check Post, Walayar on 16-3-1991. In the said objections he stated that the detention of the goods and the subsequent demand for security in the sum of Rs.4556/- are illegal and unauthorised and that the goods may be released unconditionally. In the said objection the petititioner has positively stated that the transport is coverall by the documents prescribed by the Act and the Rules, that there can be no reason to suspect the bona fides of the transport of the goods, that the petitioner has paid sales tax of Rs.6363/- in advance in respect of the turnover relating to the goods under transport and it has been so endorsed by the Sales Tax Officer, IInd Circle, Trivandrum, dated 12-3-1991. It is evident from the delivery notes produced and made mention of in Ext.P2 notice itself and in the circumstances, the goods should be released unconditionally. However, the petitioner was prepared to deposit a sum of Rs.4556/- under protest for release of the goods without delay. It is evident from the delivery notes produced and made mention of in Ext.P2 notice itself and in the circumstances, the goods should be released unconditionally. However, the petitioner was prepared to deposit a sum of Rs.4556/- under protest for release of the goods without delay. By Ext.P4 proceedings, dated 16-3-1991, The Inspector of the Sales Tax Check Post, Walayar, accepted the request of the petitioner. He fixed the security deposit in the sum of Rs.4556/-, and allowed to continue the transport on furnishing security. Ext.P5 will show that a sum of Rs.4556/- was paid towards security by the petitioner. It is thereafter the petitioner has filed this O.P., assailing Exts.P2 and P4 and has also asked for a direction to refund the security deposit of Rs.4556/- as evidenced by Ext.P5. 2. We heard counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.A. Mohammed. In the light of the delivery note, which has admittedly been tendered before the sales tax check post, as could be seen from Ext.P2 itself, we felt that the apprehension of the petitioner, that even in cases of bona fide transport, the authorities are likely to abuse their powers, is not far fetched. We requested the learned Senior Government Pleader, Mr. N.N. Divakaran Pillai, to contact the appropriate authority and clarify the position. Accordingly, Senior Government Pleader Mr. N.N. Divakaran Pillai, contacted the Sales Tax Inspector, Check Post, Walayar, and explained to us the circumstances under which the goods were detained at the check post. The Sales Tax inspector, Check Post, Walayar, was also personally present. When we confronted the Sales Tax Inspector, who was present in Court, with the photostat copy of delivery note produced before us, and which, he himself has mentioned in Ext.P2 notice, the officer had no explanation to offer. We repeatedly asked the officer under what authority he detained the goods when the delivery note contained an endorsement that a tax of Rs.6363/- was paid relating to the goods, which was under transport. It is not a case where the delivery note simply mentioned the value of the goods. The value may have been so specified by the assessee as shown in his accounts' or otherwise estimated. It is not a case where the delivery note simply mentioned the value of the goods. The value may have been so specified by the assessee as shown in his accounts' or otherwise estimated. But it is a case where the valuation of the goods shown in the delivery note in the sum of Rs.1,59,060/- was perused by the appropriate assessing authority, who made an endorsement that the tax of Rs.6363/- was paid as per demand draft dated 11-3-1991. The Sales Tax Inspector had no case that the endorsement made in the delivery note regarding tax payment is a mistake, or otherwise forged. In the light of such a delivery note, wherein there is an endorsement by the appropriate assessing authority regarding the receipt of tax, it passes one's comprehension as to how, and on what basis, the Check Post Inspector could surmise that the value of the goods noted in the delivery note is too low when compared to prevailing market rate. What is the material or basis, to say that the value of the goods mentioned in the delivery note, does not represent the market rate, is not stated either in Ext.P2 notice, nor brought to our notice at the time of hearing. We could not understand as to how the officer surmised and estimated the market value of the goods at Rs.2,16,000/-. In the light of the delivery note produced before us, wherein the receipt of tax has been endorsed by the appropriate assessing authority, and wherein the bill amount is mentioned as the value of the goods, we have no hesitation to hold that the recitals in Ext. P2 notice that the value of the goods noted in the delivery note is too low, when compared to the prevailing market rate, is nothing but a surmise, which has sprung from the fertile imagination of the officer. To say the least, the Sales Tax Inspector acted arbitrarily and in an unfair manner in discarding the delivery note and in surmising that the value of the goods noted in the delivery note is too low when compared to the prevailing market rate. On facts, we are satisfied that the conclusion in Ext. To say the least, the Sales Tax Inspector acted arbitrarily and in an unfair manner in discarding the delivery note and in surmising that the value of the goods noted in the delivery note is too low when compared to the prevailing market rate. On facts, we are satisfied that the conclusion in Ext. P2 notice about the lack of bona fides of the transport and the attempt at evasion of tax was suspected, is nothing but a meaningless ritual, and a pretence, to rope in the statutory language contained in S.29A(2B) of the Act. We are of the view, that Ext.P2 notice was issued without any bona fides. What is more, the explanation offered by the petitioner by Ext. P3, dated 16-3-1991, was not even properly adverted to or adjudicated. By Ext. P4, dated 16-3-1991, the Sales Tax Inspector insisted for furnishing of a security deposit in the sum of Rs.4556/-, which was paid by the petitioner, as could be seen from Ext. P5. In the light of the above facts, and in the circumstances brought out in the case, we hold that Exts. P2 and P4 were unfair, illegal and unauthorised. The proceedings were issued without any bona fides. We quash Exts. P2 and P4,it is only fair for the respondents to refund the security collected as per Ext. P5. They shall do -so forthwith. 3. Ordinarily, the matter should rest here. But the petitioner's counsel voiced great concern at the increasing tendency of the check post officials to detain goods at their ipse dixit and demanding security without caring to apply their mind to the various documents produced before them and exercising their powers arbitrarily and harassing the persons who move the goods across the check post. So counsel for the petitioner made a fervent appeal to us that this court should direct the respondents, especially the 2nd respondent, not to detain the petitioner's goods, in relation to which, sales tax has been paid to the concerned assessing authority or to detain goods on the ground of under-valuation. In a case where the delivery note, accompanying the transport, contains the endorsement of the concerned assessing authority about the receipt of tax due on the goods, there can be no doubt that if the goods are detained, it requires cogent and unassailable materials in the hands of the detaining authority to impede the further movement of the goods. In a case where the delivery note, accompanying the transport, contains the endorsement of the concerned assessing authority about the receipt of tax due on the goods, there can be no doubt that if the goods are detained, it requires cogent and unassailable materials in the hands of the detaining authority to impede the further movement of the goods. Without anything more, if the delivery note contained only a specification of the value of the goods and the bill amount, it cannot be stated that the check post authorities have no powers to search, inspect and detain the goods if they have material to suspect, that the goods under transport do not possess the required documents, or there is an attempt at evasion of tax. But we want to stress one aspect before such drastic powers under S.29A is exercised by the check post officials. It should be remembered that the freedom of movement, guaranteed by the Constitution of India is a very valuable one. Article 301 of the Constitution is unambiguous and very wide inks terms. It is true that reasonable restrictions can be imposed in the movement aspect of the trade. It is further true, that a sales tax law containing provisions for inspection of the goods in transit and the establishment of check post and inspection, detention, etc. of the goods, will be considered to be incidental or ancillary powers of legislation in exercise of the powers vested in the legislature under list II, entry 54 of the Vllth Schedule of the Constitution. But it should not be forgotten that every statutory power should be exercised fairly, honestly and reasonably. If a particular movement of goods is inspected in transit and the officer feels genuinely that there is an attempt at evasion of tax, he can search, inspect, detain or seize the goods as per the statutory provisions, but it can be so done only or the basis of some material. It cannot be done at the mere ipse dixit of the officer. There should be something more than mere guess work. It should not be done in an arbitrary or capricious manner. We are afraid that this essential pre-requisites to exercise the powers vested in the officers under S.29A of the Act is very often forgotten. It is, observed more in its breach than in its observance. There should be something more than mere guess work. It should not be done in an arbitrary or capricious manner. We are afraid that this essential pre-requisites to exercise the powers vested in the officers under S.29A of the Act is very often forgotten. It is, observed more in its breach than in its observance. We are highlighting this fact only to draw the attention of the check post officers and the higher inspecting officers that the powers vested in the statutory authorities under S.29A of the Act is not untrammelled or unimaginable and it can be exercised only on the basis of some material and not at the ipse dixit of the officers concerned. If the exercise of power is shown to be unfair, irrational or illegal, it will necessitate interference inappropriate proceedings. This case is a classic example of a check post Inspector, exercising his powers unfairly and unreasonably and without applying his mind. Since the Officer, who appeared before us owned his mistake and regretted for his action, we refrain from passing any strictures on his conduct. We leave it there. 4. The O.P. is allowed. In this connection, we would like to stress one aspect regarding the powers of the officers to check the transport of the goods and detain them on the ground that there is undervaluation of the goods in the delivery note or in the documents accompanying the goods. We do not want to catalogue all cases in which the officers will have reason to believe that in transporting the goods, there is an attempt to evade payment of tax. F' we would like to draw the attention of the officers that there is a kindred provision in the Act, S.19(B), which enables the Assessing Authority to assess the dealer to the best of his judgment, after making necessary enquiries, and value the goods at the prevailing market rate, in cases where in his opinion, the goods have been valued in the accounts at prices lower than the prevailing market rate. The exact scope and import of S.19(b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act has been laid down in a Bench decision of this Court in C.O. Devassy v. State of Kerala (81 STC 2). We would only remind the officers of the Department to inform themselves about the content of the said decision.