JUDGMENT K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. - The original petition is posted before this Bench by an order of reference by Chettur Sankaran Nair, J., by order dated April 10, 1991. The centre of controversy is whether the check-post authorities are empowered to detain consignment at the check-post on the ground of undervaluation of the goods. In this original petition the challenge is against exhibits 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 exhibit P5. There is also a very ambitious prayer in the original petition 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 skins at Quilon and Trivandrum, a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (in short, "the Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is stated that the petitioner purchased 720 hides as per purchase bills dated January 19, 1991 to March 11, 1991, locally. They were intended to be delivered to its head office at Erode on March 15, 1991. Before transporting the goods, the petitioner took care to send a letter dated March 12, 1991 to the 1st respondent, the assessing authority of the petitioner-firm, stating 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 exhibit Pl. The delivery note No. 840106, dated March 13, 1991, wherein a specific endorsement has been made by the assessing authority, the Sales Tax Officer, Trivandruni, for having received the tax of Rs. 6,363, paid as per demand draft on March 11, 1991, was produced before us at the time of the bearing of the original petition. The photostat copy, so produced before us, was shown to the Government Pleader also. 6,363, paid as per demand draft on March 11, 1991, was produced before us at the time of the bearing of the original petition. 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 March 14, 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 section 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 March 13, 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 exhibit P3 objection before the Inspector, Sales Tax Cheek-post, Walayar, on March 16, 1991. In the said objections he stated that the detention of the goods and the subsequent demand for security in the sum of Rs. 4,556 are illegal and unauthorised and that the goods may be released unconditionally. In the said objection the petitioner has positively stated that the transport is covered by the documents prescribed by the Act and the Rules, that there can be no reason to suspect the bonafides of the transport of the goods, that the petitioner has paid sales tax of Rs. In the said objection the petitioner has positively stated that the transport is covered by the documents prescribed by the Act and the Rules, that there can be no reason to suspect the bonafides of the transport of the goods, that the petitioner has paid sales tax of Rs. 6,363 in advance in respect of the turnover relating to the goods under transport and it has been so endorsed by the Sales Tax Officer, II Circle, Trivandrum, dated March 12, 1991. It is evident from the delivery notes produced and made mention of in exhibit P2 notice itself, and in the circumstances, the goods should be released unconditionally. However, the petitioner was prepared to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,556 under protest for release of the goods without delay. By exhibit P4 proceedings, dated March 16, 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. 4,556, and allowed to continue the transport on furnishing security. Exhibit P5 will show that a sum of Rs. 4,566 was paid towards security by the petitioner. It is, thereafter, the petitioner has filed this original petition assailing exhibits P2 and P4 and has also asked for a direction to refund the security deposit of Rs. 4,556, as evidenced by exhibit 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 exhibit P2 itself, we felt that the apprehension of the petitioner, that even in cases of bonafide 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, the 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 the delivery note produced before us, and which, he himself has mentioned in exhibit P2 notice, the officer had no explanation to offer. 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 the delivery note produced before us, and which, he himself has mentioned in exhibit 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. 6,363 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. 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. 6,363 was paid as per demand draft dated March 11, 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 exhibit 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 exhibit 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 exhibit P2 notice about the lack of bona fades 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 section 29A(2B) of the Act. We are of the view, that exhibit P2 notice was issued without any bona fides. What is more, the explanation offered by the petitioner by exhibit P3, dated March 16, 1991, was not even properly adverted to or adjudicated. By exhibit P4, dated March 16, 1991, the Sales Tax Inspector insisted for furnishing of a security deposit in the sum of Rs. 4,556, which was paid by the petitioner, as could he seen from exhibit P5. In the light of the above facts, and in the circumstances brought out in the case, we hold that exhibits P2 and P4 were unfair, illegal and unauthorised. The proceedings were issued without any bona fides. We quash exhibits P2 and P4. In the light of our annulling exhibits P2 and P4, it is only fair for the respondents to refund the security collected as per exhibit 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 undervaluation. 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 undervaluation. 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 section 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 in its 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 Seventh Schedule to 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 on 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 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 prerequisite to exercise the powers vested in the officers under section 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 section 29A of the Act is not untrammelled or unexaminable 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 in appropriate 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 original petition is allowed. In this connection, we would like to stress one aspect regarding the powers of the officers to cheek 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. But we would like to draw the attention of the officers that there is a kindred provision in the Act, section 19B, 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 the opinion, the goods have been valued in the accounts at prices lower than the prevailing market rate. The exact scope and import of section 19B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act has been laid down in a Bench decision of this, Court in Devassy v. State of Kerala [1991] 81 STC 2. The exact scope and import of section 19B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act has been laid down in a Bench decision of this, Court in Devassy v. State of Kerala [1991] 81 STC 2. We would only remind the officers of the department to inform themselves about the content of the said decision. Petition allowed.