JUDGMENT K. SREEDHARAN, J. - When C.M.P. No. 1426 of 1991 came up for orders, learned counsel appearing on either side wanted the original petition to be heard and disposed of. Accordingly I heard them at length. I am disposing of the original petition. 2. Petitioner is a registered firm, doing business in marble in Rajasthan. They are registered as dealers under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The firm is having a liaison and administrative office at Ernakulam for facilitating their business by obtaining orders from parties. Whenever the firm receives orders from Kerala for supply of marble, the goods are supplied directly to the parties, who place the orders. The office at Ernakulam is not doing any business in marble. The administrative office at Ernakulam has not been registered as a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 or under the Central Sales Tax Act. Thrissur Heart Hospital Ltd., second respondent, is constructing a hospital building. Second respondent is to supply marble and some other articles to the contractor, who had taken up the contract for the construction of the building. Therefore second respondent placed orders with the petitioner for the supply of marble tiles. It was provided in the orders that the supply should be at the site at Thrissur. On receipt of the order, petitioner-firm sent marble tiles from Rajasthan to Thrissur by road as well as by rail. The value of the marbles comes to Rs. 1,90,894. Central sales tax at the rate of 15 per cent of the value has also been levied. These facts are evident from the bills issued to the second respondent. One of the consignments sent from Rajasthan was detained by the first respondent. He verified the documents mentioned in section 29 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and rule 35 of the Rules framed thereunder. Since he did not release the goods, petitioner moved this Court by filing O.P. 7002 of 1990. This Court directed the first respondent to release the vehicles and goods on furnishing bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 75,000. Petitioner complied with that direction and consequently the first respondent released the vehicles and the goods. Since he did not release the goods, petitioner moved this Court by filing O.P. 7002 of 1990. This Court directed the first respondent to release the vehicles and goods on furnishing bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 75,000. Petitioner complied with that direction and consequently the first respondent released the vehicles and the goods. Since the petitioner is not an assessee under the Act and he is not liable to pay any tax in the State of Kerala, first respondent cannot take any step for realising any amount from him. First respondent has issued exhibit P8 letter to the second respondent requesting them to stop payments to the petitioner or any person claiming under them till they get tax clearance from his office. The action taken by the first respondent is under challenge. 3. A detailed counter-affidavit has been sworn to by the first respondent. Thee contentions taken therein are to the following effect. Second respondent by exhibit R1(b), dated April 23, 1990, requested the petitioner's agent at Cochin to supply certain quantity of marbles at their building site. Petitioner by exhibit R1(a) dated May 15, 1990, quoted the price of marbles on condition that the delivery will be at their site at Thrissur, that the rate is inclusive of all taxes and unloading charges, and that form 27A should be supplied by the second respondent. This offer of the petitioner was accepted by the second respondent, evidenced by exhibit R1(c) dated May 28, 1990. Exhibits R1(a) and R1(b) prove that petitioner is having a branch office at Ernakulam. The vehicles and the goods seized were released in compliance with the order passed by this Court in O.P. 7002 of 1990. Petitioner tried to evade the payment of tax due under the Act and hence penalty was imposed on them. The enquiry revealed that the petitioner was supplying marble at large quantities to various consumer in Kerala without proper document or bill. They created documents to evade payment of tax. Petitioner delivered the goods to the second respondent at Thrissur within the jurisdiction of the first respondent. Under section 25 of the Act, the second respondent can be directed to withhold the money due to the petitioner. Petitioner is a dealer liable to be registered under the Act. The documents created by him undervaluing the sale price has gone to affect the revenue of the State. Under section 25 of the Act, the second respondent can be directed to withhold the money due to the petitioner. Petitioner is a dealer liable to be registered under the Act. The documents created by him undervaluing the sale price has gone to affect the revenue of the State. Petitioner has no assets within the State and so, exhibit P8 order to the second respondent is not to be interfered with. 4. The first question that arises for consideration in this original petition is the nature of the transaction entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent. It is common case that the second respondent is constructing a multi-storied building for housing hospital. For that purpose they require huge quantities of marble tiles. They placed orders with the petitioner for the supply of the marble tiles at Thrissur. If the sale and the consequent movement of marble tiles from Rajasthan to Thrissur are in the course of inter-State sale, petitioner is liable to pay tax under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. He is not liable to pay any tax under the Act. The stand taken by the first respondent is that petitioner is having his agent in Cochin and he was transferring the marble tiles from Rajasthan to his agent. The agent, in his turn, was delivering the goods to the second respondent. So, according to him, there was consignment of the goods from the petitioner to his agent at Cochin and the agent was selling the goods to the second respondent. In this view, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the marble tiles supplied by the petitioner is exigible to sales tax under the Act. 5. Supreme Court in Balabhagas Hulaschand v. State of Orissa [1976] 37 STC 207, considered the circumstances which constitute an inter-State sale. In this view, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the marble tiles supplied by the petitioner is exigible to sales tax under the Act. 5. Supreme Court in Balabhagas Hulaschand v. State of Orissa [1976] 37 STC 207, considered the circumstances which constitute an inter-State sale. According to their Lordships on the satisfaction of the following conditions a sale can be said to have taken place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce : (i) that there is an agreement to sell which contains a stipulation express or implied, regarding the movement of the goods from one State to another; (ii) that in pursuance of the said contract the goods in fact moved from one State to another; and (iii) that ultimately a concluded sale takes place in the State where the goods are sent which must be different from the State from which the goods move. In the instant case one has to examine whether the transaction entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent satisfies these conditions. Exhibit R1(c) produced by the first respondent proves that the terms and conditions suggested by the petitioner in exhibit R1(a) have been accepted by the second respondent. The condition mentioned in exhibit R1(a) are that the goods are to be delivered at the building site at Thrissur on the price mentioned therein. The rate mentioned is inclusive of all taxes and unloading charges at Thrissur. In pursuance of that agreement, the goods moved from Rajasthan to Thrissur and they were delivered at the building site of the second respondent. The property in the goods transferred from the petitioner to second respondent at Thrissur, where delivery is effected. Thus it can safely be held that all the conditions mentioned by their Lordships have been satisfied in the instant case. It, therefore follows that the transaction entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent is nothing other than an inter-State sale. 6. A contention was raised by the Revenue that the petitioner transferred the goods to his agent at Ernakulam and that agent sold it to the second respondent. This argument is not supported by any evidence other than the ipse dixit of the first respondent. 6. A contention was raised by the Revenue that the petitioner transferred the goods to his agent at Ernakulam and that agent sold it to the second respondent. This argument is not supported by any evidence other than the ipse dixit of the first respondent. Even conceding for argument's sake that the agent of the petitioner had played a vital role in effecting the sale, that role will not in any way change the character of the sale to one other than inter-State sale. Reference may be made to the following decisions of the Supreme Court : English Electric Company of India Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1976] 38 STC 475 and Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [ 1985 60 STC 301 . In the decision [1976] 38 STC 475 (SC) (English Electric Company of India Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer) appellant-company was having its registered office at Calcutta and branches in many places including Bombay. A buyer at Bombay wrote to the branch office at Bombay for the quotation of the goods. The Bombay branch wrote to the Madras branch giving all the specifications. The Madras branch, in reply, gave the required particulars and mentioned that the price was free on rail Madras. The Bombay branch thereafter wrote to the buyer at Bombay about the particulars and conditions of sale. The goods were to be manufactured at the Madras branch factory. The Bombay buyer placed orders with the Bombay branch accepting all the terms and conditions. The Bombay branch placed the indent with the Madras branch and gave the buyer's name. On getting instruction from the Bombay branch, goods were despatched from Madras. The goods were delivered to the Bombay buyer through clearing agent. On these facts their Lordships took the sale to be an inter-State sale, and observed : "The presence of an intermediary such as the seller's own representative or branch office, who initiated the contract may not make the matter different. Such an interception by a known person on behalf of the seller in the delivery State and such person's activities prior to or after the implementation of the contract may not alter the position." This view has been reiterated by their Lordships in [1985] 60 STC 301 (SC) (Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer). Such an interception by a known person on behalf of the seller in the delivery State and such person's activities prior to or after the implementation of the contract may not alter the position." This view has been reiterated by their Lordships in [1985] 60 STC 301 (SC) (Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer). It was observed therein : "The manufacture of the goods at the Hyderabad factory and their movement thereafter from Hyderabad to the branch office outside the State was an incident of the contract entered into with the buyer, for it was intended that the same good should be delivered by the branch office to the buyer. There was no break in the movement of the goods. The branch office merely acted as a conduit through which the goods passed on their way to the buyer. It would have been a different matter if the particular goods had been despatched by the registered office at Hyderabad to the branch office outside the State for sale in the open market and without reference to any order placed by the buyer. In such a case if the goods are purchased from the branch office, it is not a sale under which the goods commenced their movement from Hyderabad. It is a sale where the goods moved merely from the branch office to the buyer. The movement of the goods from the registered office at Hyderabad to the branch office outside the State cannot be regarded as an incident of the sale made to the buyer." In the light of the above authoritative pronouncements, I have no hesitation in holding that the presence of petitioner's agent at Cochin has not gone to change the character of the sale which is an inter-State sale. In pursuance of the concluded contract evidenced by exhibits R1(a) to R1(c), petitioner despatched the goods from Rajasthan to Thrissur where the goods were delivered to the second respondent. That transaction is an inter-State sale and is not exigible to tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. 7. First respondent has issued exhibit P8 communication to the second respondent preventing them from paying any amount to the petitioner till they get tax clearance certificate from his office. This communication is one purported to have been issued under section 25(1) of the Act. 7. First respondent has issued exhibit P8 communication to the second respondent preventing them from paying any amount to the petitioner till they get tax clearance certificate from his office. This communication is one purported to have been issued under section 25(1) of the Act. Section 25 deals with further mode of recovery of the tax. That section, inter alia, authorises the assessing authority, may at any time by notice in writing require any person from whom money is due or may become due to a dealer to pay to the assessing authority so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the amount due by the dealer in respect of arrears of tax or the whole of the money when it is equal to or less than the arrears of tax, fee or penalty. The notice contemplated by this section as per rule 22 of the Rules should be in form 16. Form 16 is in the following terms : "Take notice that a sum of Rs. ....... (Rupees ...........) (in words) only is due to the Government from an assessee ........." So a notice under section 25(1) of the Act should specifically state the actual amount due from the assessee. In other words, when the amount due from the assessee is quantified, that amount alone can be directed to be detained by the person from whom the money has become due to the assessee. In the instant case first respondent has prevented the second respondent from effecting further payments to the petitioner. This all comprehensive bar imposed on the payment is beyond the jurisdiction of the first respondent. First respondent acted illegally in issuing exhibit P8 communication to the second respondent. 8. The sale of marble tiles effected by the petitioner to the second respondent, as has been stated above, is an inter-State sale. That sale is one coming within the purview of section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Tax under that Act has been levied on the petitioner and is to be paid to the State of Rajasthan from where the goods moved. The first respondent has no authority to subject that sale to tax under the Act. The action taken by the first respondent for levying tax on the sale is without jurisdiction. Exhibit P8 notice, for the reasons stated earlier in this judgment, is also illegal. The first respondent has no authority to subject that sale to tax under the Act. The action taken by the first respondent for levying tax on the sale is without jurisdiction. Exhibit P8 notice, for the reasons stated earlier in this judgment, is also illegal. Hence I quash the entire proceedings initiated by the first respondent against the petitioner. The bank guarantee executed by the petitioner in pursuance of the direction given by this Court in O.P. 7002 of 1990 has also to be released to the petitioner. I do so. The original petition is allowed in the above terms. However, I direct the parties to suffer their respective costs. Petition allowed.