JUDGMENT T. L. VISWANATHA IYER, J. - Petitioners in O.P. Nos. 14503, 15987, 16930 and 17057 of 1992 are the purchasers of call monitors and printers from Pacific Telecommunications and Instruments Limited, Secunderabad, hereinafter referred to as "the company". The said company and its managing director are the petitioners in O.P. No. 17050 of 1992. Petitioners in the four writ petitions mentioned above had placed orders with the company for the supply of call monitors and printers, specimen copies of which they have produced along with their writ petitions. They allege that the goods were despatched from Secunderabad to Kochi by air-freight through the Indian Airlines after having been cleared by the excise authorities, for consignment to the respective petitioners. The excise gate passes, specimen copies of which the petitioners have produced show the name of the consignee as the respective petitioners. The invoices issued by the company are in the name of these petitioners and they have been charged Central sales tax in respect of the sales. 2. When these consignments reached Kochi, the Indian Airlines which is represented by the first respondent did not deliver the goods to the petitioners though the first respondent had issued cargo arrival notices to the various petitioners. Delivery was refused on the ground that clearance from the second respondent, Intelligence Officer, Sales Tax, Mattancherry, was required before the goods could be delivered. Though the petitioners demurred to this procedure on the ground that the first respondent could not detain the goods and insist on orders from the second respondent, they were definitely informed that such clearance was needed. Copy of the communication which the petitioner in O.P. No. 14503 of 1992 received from the first respondent is exhibit P7 and it informs him that he must obtain written release order from the second respondent to enable the first respondent to deliver the consignment to him. Petitioners apprehended that non-delivery of the goods was because of projected proceedings under section 29A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ("KGST Act"). Another purchaser like the petitioners, namely, one B. T. Mathew of Palluruthy had been issued a notice on September 28, 1992, a copy of which is exhibit P8 calling upon him to furnish security for an amount of Rs. 1,853 being twice the amount of the tax alleged to be evaded for getting delivery of the goods. Another purchaser like the petitioners, namely, one B. T. Mathew of Palluruthy had been issued a notice on September 28, 1992, a copy of which is exhibit P8 calling upon him to furnish security for an amount of Rs. 1,853 being twice the amount of the tax alleged to be evaded for getting delivery of the goods. The reason stated for action under section 29A was that the consignee was not a registered dealer under the KGST Act and therefore evasion of tax was suspected. Petitioners in these four writ petitions, namely, O.P. Nos. 14503, 15987, 16930 and 17057 of 1992 filed original petitions in this backdrop of the facts for a declaration that the Intelligence Officer, namely, the second respondent was not entitled to claim tax under the KGST Act for the consignments in question. Since the first respondent, Indian Airlines, had also claimed demurrage caused by the delay in the delivery, petitioners also prayed for a declaration that they were not liable to pay demurrage to the first respondent in respect of the delay in the delivery. 3. O.P. No. 17050 of 1992 was filed, as stated earlier, by the company and its managing director in which they stated that they are receiving orders from various parts of the country and they make arrangements for despatch of the goods to the customers at their places. They have a branch officer in Ravipuram at Ernakulam, whose main function is to procure orders from customers and forward the same to the head office at Secunderabad. The goods are released from the company's factory in the name of the particular customer and then consigned either to the branch office or to the consignee directly after paying the tax due under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The sales are inter-State sales on which no tax is payable in Kerala. While so on May 20, 1992, there was an inspection of the branch office at Ernakulam and some records were seized and a shop inspection report, exhibit P1, was prepared. The company is now faced with proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 45A of the KGST Act for the alleged non-compliance with the notices issued by the sales tax authorities for appearance. A copy of that notice is exhibit P2. The company has objected to the proposals and the matter is resting there at present. The company is now faced with proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 45A of the KGST Act for the alleged non-compliance with the notices issued by the sales tax authorities for appearance. A copy of that notice is exhibit P2. The company has objected to the proposals and the matter is resting there at present. It was while so that the Indian Airlines authorities stopped delivery of goods to the customers consequent on which the original petition was filed for the grant of reliefs similar to those claimed in the other original petitions. 4. The first respondent representing the Indian Airlines has in his counter-affidavit stated that the reason for non-delivery of goods to the various consignee-petitioners was the prohibition contained in the letter, exhibit R1(a), dated July 27, 1992, issued by the Intelligence Officer, Sales Tax, Mattancherry, wherein he had alleged that a large number of unregistered dealers were utilising the air consignment facilities to transport goods with a view to evade checking at the border check-posts. The company was one such, who used the air facility and got goods transported without remitting the tax due to the Kerala State. The Intelligence Officer therefore requested the first respondent to detain any consignment in favour of the company and to release the same only after written release orders were issued by him. The Intelligence Officer followed this communication with another order, exhibit R1(b), dated September 1, 1992, pointing out that goods were being purchased from the company by unregistered dealers and therefore requesting the first respondent to detain such goods as well until clearance from his office. The instruction was, not to release any goods to the company's branch at Ernakulam in any C/o. address without obtaining release orders from him. 5. The second respondent, Intelligence Officer, has filed a statement in which he justified his action under section 29A(2) of the KGST Act stating that he had strictly acted under the said provision and that he had issued notice to the petitioner in O.P. No. 14503 of 1992 affording him an opportunity of being heard in the matter. 5. The second respondent, Intelligence Officer, has filed a statement in which he justified his action under section 29A(2) of the KGST Act stating that he had strictly acted under the said provision and that he had issued notice to the petitioner in O.P. No. 14503 of 1992 affording him an opportunity of being heard in the matter. A counter-affidavit has been separately filed on behalf of the Intelligence Officer in O.P. No. 17050 of 1992 filed by the company in which it is alleged that there is attempt at evasion of tax by the branch office of the company at Ernakulam, that they have not taken out registration under the KGST Act and that there were local sales by the branch office effected at Ernakulam liable to tax under the KGST Act. According to the counter-affidavit, the detention of the goods in the office of the first respondent was required as otherwise the second respondent may not be able to take action as and when any consignment came. 6. It is evident from what is stated in the counter-affidavit of the Intelligence Officer that the action taken by him is on the basis of section 29A of the KGST Act. It is accordingly that he has directed detention of the goods by the Indian Airlines authorities and to release them only after obtaining release order for him. The contention of the petitioners is that there is no basis for any action under section 29A because the sales in question are inter-State sales on which no tax is payable within Kerala. They also submit that the reason stated in the notice, namely, that the consignee is not a registered dealer under the KGST Act is irrelevant and insufficient to hold that there is any attempt at evasion of payment of tax. 6a. Section 29A of the Act prescribes a procedure for inspection of goods in transit through notified areas. They also submit that the reason stated in the notice, namely, that the consignee is not a registered dealer under the KGST Act is irrelevant and insufficient to hold that there is any attempt at evasion of payment of tax. 6a. Section 29A of the Act prescribes a procedure for inspection of goods in transit through notified areas. Sub-section (1) provides that the driver or other person in-charge of a vehicle or vessel shall stop the vehicle or vessel at any place within a notified area when so requested by the officer in-charge of that notified area or at any other place when so required by any officer empowered by the Government in that behalf for the purpose of enabling the said officer to verify the documents required by sub-section (2) of section 29 to be in the possession of a person transporting the goods and to satisfy himself that there is no evasion of tax. Sub-section (2) which provides for the detention of the goods is to the effect that if such officer has reason to suspect that the goods under transport are not covered by proper and genuine documents (in cases where such documents are necessary) or that any person transporting that goods is attempting to evade payment of the tax due under the Act, he may for reasons to be recorded in writing detain the goods and shall allow the same to be transported only on the owner of the goods or his representative or the others mentioned furnishing security for double the amount of tax likely to be evaded as may be estimated by such officer. 7. It is these provisions that are invoked by the second respondent. Sub-section (1) is clear that the detention is of goods while in transit because it requires the driver or the other person in-charge of a vehicle to stop the vehicle when required by the officer mentioned. The purpose of stoppage of the vehicle is to enable the officer to verify the documents required under sub-section (2) of section 29 and to satisfy himself that there is no evasion of tax. In other words the stoppage of the vehicle is to enable the officer concerned to satisfy himself about the bona fides of the transport and that there is no evasion of tax involved in the transport. In other words the stoppage of the vehicle is to enable the officer concerned to satisfy himself about the bona fides of the transport and that there is no evasion of tax involved in the transport. The transport of the goods and stoppage in transit are what are contemplated by sub-section (1) of section 29A. Sub-section (2) provides for the contingency where the officer suspects that the transport is not covered by proper and genuine documents or that any person transporting the goods is attempting to evade payment of the tax. Only if either of these circumstance exists that the question of detention of the goods arises. Assuming transport by air is a contingency contemplated by sub-section (1), still detention of the goods will arise only if there is any attempt at evasion of tax, by the person transporting the goods. Now the goods have been sent to the consignee-petitioners and it cannot be said that they are attempting to evade payment of any tax. If at all any tax is payable within Kerala it can only be by the company's branch office in Ernakulam. If the consignees are the persons transporting the goods certainly there is no attempt at evasion of tax by them and sub-section (2) is not attracted. There is no case for the second respondent that the transport is not accompanied by proper and genuine documents. 8. The next question is if the transport is assumed to be by the company through air is there any attempt at evasion of tax by them. That will require examination of the nature of the transaction. The only reason stated in the notice issued under section 29A(2) is that the consignees are not registered dealers under the KGST Act and therefore evasion of tax is suspected. I do not think the fact that a consignee is an unregistered dealer by itself and without anything more is sufficient to lead to a suspicion that there is attempt at evasion of tax. Any such conclusion should be based on more sold facts than the mere non-registration of the consignee. I do not think the fact that a consignee is an unregistered dealer by itself and without anything more is sufficient to lead to a suspicion that there is attempt at evasion of tax. Any such conclusion should be based on more sold facts than the mere non-registration of the consignee. For instance if a person has purchased goods for his own use as the petitioners claim in this case, and he is transporting the same from outside the State it could not be said that there is any attempt at evasion of tax merely because the consignee is not a dealer registered under the KGST Act. A concrete example of this nature will be, where a person constructing a building is bringing cement for his own purposes from a factory in Tamil Nadu or marble purchased by him in Rajasthan in his own name. So the mere non-registration of the consignee cannot by itself be a ground for detention of the goods under section 29A. In all these cases the goods have been consigned to the various petitioners and there is no case that they are themselves attempting to evade payment of the tax. 9. If it be true as alleged by the second respondent that there is sale of goods within Kerala by the branch office it is up to him to take proceedings against the company's branch office in Ernakulam either to bring them to tax or otherwise to compel them to make payment of the tax due. Of course, I must mention here that the definite stand of the company having regard to the nature of the transaction and the documentation is that there is no local sale but only inter-State sale from Secunderabad to Kerala. Without resorting to the aforesaid procedure, it was not proper for the second respondent to direct detention of the goods by the Indian Airlines authorities and directing the consignees to obtain clearance from him before the goods are released. 10. It must be remembered that section 29A interferes with the freedom of movement guaranteed under article 301 of the Constitution of India. It is a very valuable constitutional freedom and any interference therewith should be limited to the minimum and subject to the compliance with strict conditions of the provision which imposes any restriction. 10. It must be remembered that section 29A interferes with the freedom of movement guaranteed under article 301 of the Constitution of India. It is a very valuable constitutional freedom and any interference therewith should be limited to the minimum and subject to the compliance with strict conditions of the provision which imposes any restriction. May be there are practical difficulties for the second respondent to reach the goods which allegedly are being received by the company's branch. But that will not enable him to issue prohibitory orders of the nature of exhibits R1(a) and R1(b). They are not justified by the terms of section 29A. 11. I have my own doubts about the applicability of section 29A to a situation of this nature where the goods are being brought by air-freight. What section 29A(1) adumbrates is stoppage of a vehicle while in transit for certain purposes. Here the checking takes place after the goods have been off-loaded from the air-craft and while they are in the custody of the Indian Airlines. If that be so, section 29A(1) may not strictly be attracted to the facts of these cases. I am not however expressing any final opinion on this point as it is unnecessary in the view that I have taken about the validity of exhibits R1(a) and R1(b). 12. This is a case where the person transporting the goods and the destination to which they are being transported are all known There is no case that any false statement had been made in that regard. The dispute, if any, is only regarding the nature of the transaction which according to the second respondent related to a local sale. If that be so as stated earlier his remedy lay elsewhere to initiate proceedings against the company for assessment of any tax that may be payable by them and not by detention of the goods arriving at Kochi by Indian Airlines flights. Exhibits R1(a) and R1(b) being unauthorised are liable to be quashed. Though there is no specific prayer for the purpose in the original petitions evidently because the petitioners were unaware of these documents which came to light only along with the counter-affidavit of the first respondent this Court is entitled to mould the relief which is couched in very wide terms in the original petitions and to quash exhibits R1(a) and R1(b). 13. 13. There is also a prayer to quash the demand for payment of demurrage by the first respondent-Indian Airlines. The question of liability of demurrage will depend upon the terms and conditions of the carriage. They have not been placed before me. At any rate it is a matter relating to the contract of carriage between the parties. It is best adjudicated in a properly framed civil suit and not in a proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution, particularly when this Court has not been enlightened regarding the terms and conditions of the contract of carriage. The original petitions are therefore allowed in part. Exhibits R1(a) and R1(b) are quashed. The first respondent shall not detain the goods consigned to the various petitioners or others on the basis of exhibits R1(a) and R1(b). There will be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.