JUDGMENT T. L. VISWANATHA IYER, J. - Petitioner had entered into an agreement exhibit P1 with the Government of India on May 31, 1988 for compiling, printing, binding and supplying a specified number of copies of the telephone directory in the Ernakulam Telecom District. As per the agreement, he had to supply 63,000 copies of the directory to the Telecom Department free of cost, besides paying an amount of Rs. 1 lakh to the Central Government. The directory was to be printed at his cost. The petitioner was permitted to publish advertisements in the directory which he may procure from the public. 2. For the purpose of printing the directory, the petitioner procured paper from the Tamil Nadu Newsprint Paper Limited at Pugalur, Tiruchirappalli District. The paper was under transport from Pugalur to the petitioner's place at Kochi by lorry TDX 2264 on February 5, 1989, when it was detained at the Gopalapuram Sales Tax Check-post, and a notice exhibit P5 was issued to the driver under section 29A(2) of the Kerala General Sales tax Act, 1963 ("the Act"), stating that the consignee, the petitioner was not a registered dealer under the Act, and therefore attempt at evasion of sales tax was suspected. The transport was supported by the requisite documents, including delivery note issued under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, a copy of which is exhibit P4. On the interception of the lorry, the petitioner produced before the Check-post Officer the documents relating to his purchase, as also a letter from the Tamil Nadu Newsprint Paper Limited addressed to the Check-post Officer certifying that they have charged 10 per cent Central sales tax on the sale, and that the transport was a bona fide one. The petitioner also produced the gate pass issued by the Central excise authorities for removal of the paper from the factory premises. But the officer did not accept the contention that the transport was bona fide, and insisted on the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for Rs. 30,111 as a condition for release of the goods, pending enquiry. The bank guarantee was accordingly furnished and the goods were got released on February 8, 1989. 3. But the officer did not accept the contention that the transport was bona fide, and insisted on the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for Rs. 30,111 as a condition for release of the goods, pending enquiry. The bank guarantee was accordingly furnished and the goods were got released on February 8, 1989. 3. The Enquiry Officer, namely, the Sales Tax Officer (Enquiry), Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Palakkad, held an enquiry into the matter on July 26, 1989, at which the petitioner appeared and produced the requisite documents in support of his contentions. The petitioner did not thereafter hear anything in the mater from the Enquiry Officer. But the bank which furnished the bank guarantee was informed about an order passed by the said officer, with request to pay the amount of the bank guarantee. The bank thereupon informed the petitioner about the request made by the Enquiry Officer and directed him to remit the amount of Rs. 30,111 for the purpose of honouring the request made by the Enquiry Officer. This letter exhibit B8 from the bank is dated August 2, 1989, wherein they enclosed a copy of the order of the Enquiry Officer July 27, 1989, which had been sent to them by the officer concerned. A copy of that order is exhibit P9. It is seen therefrom that the Enquiry Officer had held that there was attempt at evasion of sales tax by the petitioner. A penalty of Rs. 30,111 was therefore imposed on the petitioner. No copy of this order was ever served on the petitioner, even till date. On receipt of exhibits P8 and P9, and in the absence of any official communication from the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking to quash exhibit P9 as he could not resort to the alternate remedy of appeal, without being served with a copy of the order by the Enquiry Officer. 4. The fact that no copy of the order exhibit P9 was served on the petitioner is admitted by the Government Pleader. It would appear that the said order was issued to some irrelevant address in Palakkad, while the petitioner was stationed in Ernakulam and all the correspondence which the petitioner had with the department emanated from his address in Ernakulam. The fact that no copy of the order exhibit P9 was served on the petitioner is admitted by the Government Pleader. It would appear that the said order was issued to some irrelevant address in Palakkad, while the petitioner was stationed in Ernakulam and all the correspondence which the petitioner had with the department emanated from his address in Ernakulam. It is really surprising that despite all this, the Enquiry Officer did not choose to issue the order to the petitioner at Ernakulam and purported to send it to some unknown irrelevant address in Palakkad, thereby depriving the petitioner of the opportunity to file appeal which he had under the Act. The authorities functioning under the Act should realise that passing such orders is not a ritual to be performed under the Act. They affect rights of parties. The attempt should therefore be to effectively communicate the order to the affected party, instead of making a farce of it. Since the petitioner has thus been deprived of his right to challenge the order exhibit P9 in appeal, for no fault of his, I am proceeding to deal with exhibit P9 on merits, particularly as I am of the opinion that the said order is illegal and unsustainable in law. 5. Exhibit P9 states that the Enquiry Officer was "satisfied" that there was attempt at evasion of tax in the case. His discussion on the point is as follows : "I have perused the records and heard the case. Their style of business is as under : They themselves collect advertisements from various sources. They purchase paper, etc., and print the telephone directory relating to Ernakulam tele district. The materials are handed over to Telecom Ernakulam authorities. As such, in this case there is (1) purchase of materials, (2) paying the printing charges of the directory, (3) collecting advertisement charges, etc., Though the sale value of the tele directory is not received from the department, they are getting it by way of advertisement. As such, there is correctly the transactions of a dealer in this case. There is transfer of property for valuable consideration from all concerned." 6. The preliminary notice exhibit P5 issued by the Check-post Officer was to the effect that attempt at evasion of tax was suspected because the consignee namely, the petitioner, was not a registered dealer. As such, there is correctly the transactions of a dealer in this case. There is transfer of property for valuable consideration from all concerned." 6. The preliminary notice exhibit P5 issued by the Check-post Officer was to the effect that attempt at evasion of tax was suspected because the consignee namely, the petitioner, was not a registered dealer. The statement in exhibit P9 is to the effect that since the petitioner purchased materials, paid printing charges and collected advertisements, he is to be considered as a dealer though he is not getting any price for the directories delivered to the Telecom Department. It is stated that the price is made goods by the advertisements gathered by him. It is significant that there is no case either in exhibit P5 or in exhibit P9 that the transport in question was not supported by the requisite documents. 7. A perusal of exhibits P5 and P9 would show that the main reason put forward for the detention of the goods and for the imposition of penalty is that he is not a registered dealer. This by itself and without anything more cannot be a ground for detaining the goods under section 29A. Cases can be postulated where a person brings materials for his own purposes (say cement or other building materials) from outside the State. Detention of such goods at the check-post, merely because the consignee is not a registered dealer will be placing an unjustified fetter on inter-State movement of goods, quite unrelated to the object of the Act. The position may be different where the concerned Officer has other materials in his possession which may lead to a suspicion that the transport in question was not a bona fide one and that there is an attempt at evasion of tax. But in the absence of any such materials, it will be improper to detain the goods at the check-post, merely for the reason that the consignee is not a registered dealer under the Act. 8. Section 29A(2) enables the detention of goods in transit if the officer at the check-post has reason to suspect that the transport is not covered by proper and genuine documents or that any person transporting the goods is attempting to evade payment of tax due under the Act. 8. Section 29A(2) enables the detention of goods in transit if the officer at the check-post has reason to suspect that the transport is not covered by proper and genuine documents or that any person transporting the goods is attempting to evade payment of tax due under the Act. The first clause does not admittedly apply to the case on hand, as the transport was covered by proper and genuine documents. The question is whether the second clause applies to the case. Petitioner was transporting the goods from Tamil Nadu to Kerala pursuant to a purchase on which 10 per cent Central sales tax had been paid as the petitioner-consignee was not a registered dealer. The work undertaken by the petitioner was to print and supply a particular number of telephone directories free of cost to the Telecom Department, besides his paying an amount of Rs. 1 lakh to the Government of India. The petitioner has to reimburse the expenses incurred by him from the advertisements which he is allowed to procure and include in the telephone directory. A contract of sale of goods implies a seller and a buyer and the payment of price by the latter to the former. These are essential conditions for a sale [vide State of Madras v. Cannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) Ltd. [1958] 9 STC 353 (SC); AIR 1958 SC 560 ]. So far as this transaction is concerned, no price is paid by the Union of India to the petitioner. On the other hand, he supplies the directories free of cost besides paying an amount of Rs. 1 lakh to the Government of India. He reimburses himself for the expenses only by means of the advertisements which he canvasses and obtains, and includes in the telephone directory. Such payment by a third party cannot be said to be payment of price by the purchaser to the petitioner. It cannot therefore be stated that there is a sale effected by the petitioner to the Government of India or to the Telecom authorities making him a dealer under the Act in respect of the printing and delivery of the directories. It is more like a franchise granted to the petitioner for the purpose, which does not result in any sale or purchase of goods. It is more like a franchise granted to the petitioner for the purpose, which does not result in any sale or purchase of goods. Even otherwise, it has not been established as to how the Enquiry Officer could have been satisfied that there was any attempt at evasion of tax. In Sudhi v. Intelligence Officer [1992] 85 STC 337 a Division Bench of this Court, after adverting to the different shades of meaning of the expression "evasion" held that mens rea or the mental element was embedded in the words "evaded" or "sought to be evaded" in section 45A of the Act. The same ratio must apply to section 29A as well when it speaks of "attempting to evade payment of tax". Therefore, when there is scope for a genuine dispute regarding any liability for tax, as to whether there is a taxable sale at all (as in this case), the question of detaining the goods at the check-post or imposing penalty under section 29A does not arise. The materials available in this case are not sufficient to hold that there was any attempt at evasion of tax by the petitioner. There is ground for a genuine dispute whether there was any taxable sale at all involved in the work undertaken by the petitioner. In such cases it is not for the check-post authority to act on mere suspicion and to find that there is any attempt at evasion of payment of tax which alone vests him with the jurisdiction to act under section 29A. At best, he can only alert the assessing authority in Ernakulam to initiate proceedings for assessment of any alleged sale, at which the petitioner will have all his opportunities to put forward his pleas on law and on fact. The process of detention of the goods at the check-post, cannot be resorted to in such cases when there is a bona fide dispute regarding the very existence of a sale and the exigibility for tax. Section 29A is not intended to subserve such an object. 9. In Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jyothi Liquors [1992] 84 STC 509 this Court held that unless there is an attempt at evasion of tax on the goods under transport, detention at the check-post is not warranted. Section 29A is not intended to subserve such an object. 9. In Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jyothi Liquors [1992] 84 STC 509 this Court held that unless there is an attempt at evasion of tax on the goods under transport, detention at the check-post is not warranted. The finding that there is attempt at evasion of payment of tax should not be based on mere guesses, but should be founded on concrete facts. No such facts have been disclosed in this case. I am therefore of the opinion that exhibit P9 is an order without jurisdiction and it has got to be quashed. The original petition is therefore allowed and exhibit P9 is quashed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.