JUDGMENT A. R. TIWARI, J. - The petitioner No. 1 is a proprietory firm carrying on business of sale and purchase of supari as also other products as commission agent, at Indore. The petitioner No. 2 is the driver of the truck bearing registration No. TAX-8559. The petitioner is registered under the provisions of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act"). On January 6, 1994, the petitioner No. 1 hired the aforesaid truck No. TAX-8559 from Changaramkulma for carrying supari worth Rs. 2,11,575 to Indore. When the truck crossed the barrier, the respondent No. 2 stopped the truck near Bijalpur and brought it to Navlakha Complex. The vehicle was searched and goods and documents were inspected. The documents were found in order. Yet, the vehicle and the goods were seized vide seizure memo (annexure P4). The respondent No. 2 felt that the value indicated in the documents was less than the value prevailing in the market. He, therefore, issued notice to the petitioner under section 29-A(11) of the Act. The notice is marked as annexure P6. Dubbing the seizure (annexure P4) and the notice (annexure P6) as without jurisdiction, the petitioners have filed this writ petition for appropriate reliefs. 2. I have heard both the sides. 3. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax has no authority to initiate action by issuance of notice under section 29-A(11) of the Act. According to him, it is limited to seeing that transport carried with him the requisite documents. The power does not extend to question or enquire whether the documents contained wrong particulars with regard to value of the goods being transported. No action, counsel urges, is permissible on the linchpin that value as shown was less than the market value and that it is not permissible to assume that this constituted an attempt to facilitate the evasion of tax on such goods. It is thus, submitted that the seizure of goods (annexure P4) as well as notice (annexure P6), issued pursuant thereto, are without jurisdiction and merit to be mortalised. Reliance is placed on the order passed by this Court in Indore-Kolhapur Roadlines v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax [1994] 95 STC 141. It is argued that no lapse in terms of section 29-CC of the Act was indisputably discovered and consequently action, as initiated, was manifestly without jurisdiction. 4. Reliance is placed on the order passed by this Court in Indore-Kolhapur Roadlines v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax [1994] 95 STC 141. It is argued that no lapse in terms of section 29-CC of the Act was indisputably discovered and consequently action, as initiated, was manifestly without jurisdiction. 4. The Government Advocate for the respondents could not point out existence of any of the conditions as enumerated under the aforesaid provision. In the face of this factual position and in view of the aforesaid order on the identical matters, he expressed his inability to support seizure and notice. He, however, prayed the liberty be reserved to take action if permitted under any other provision of the Act. 5. It is apt to notice the relevant provisions. Section 29-CC(3) of the act provides as under : "If the officer referred to in sub-section (2) finds on the inspection of the vehicle that the transporter is not carrying the documents referred to in sub-section (1) or the documents being carried are not in order or the transporter is not carrying a copy of a declaration referred to in sub-section (2), he may direct the transporter to take the vehicle along with the goods and the documents to the nearest check-post or the circle or the sub-circle office to be named by him and stop it and keep it stationary there till such time as may be required for action in accordance with the provisions of section 29-A." 6. It is noticeable that action in accordance with the provisions of section 29-A of the Act is permissible only if specified officer on inspection of the vehicle found that - (1) transporter is not carrying the documents referred to in sub-section (1), or (2) documents being carried are not in order, or (3) transporter is not carrying a copy of declaration referred to in sub-section (2). By sub-section (1), it is mandated that the transporter transporting by road any goods shall carry with him an invoice, bill, or challan or any other document by whatever name called, issued by the consignor of the goods giving such particulars as may be prescribed Sub-section (2) empowers the prescribed officer to stop the vehicle and to keep it stationary to search it and inspect goods and documents relating to it with a view to verifying that the transporter is carrying the documents referred to in sub-section (1) and also copy of declaration referred to in sub-section (5) of section 29-A and whether all such documents are legible, correct and complete. As noted earlier, the checkpost officers had cleared the vehicle. 7. After section 29-C, new section 29-CC is inserted by the M.P. General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1990 (No. 20 of 1990). 8. The notice under section 29-A(11) of the Act is issued on the fulcrum of section 29-A(4) of the Act. Section 29-A(4) contains that - "Every person transporting such goods as may be notified by the State Government in this behalf (hereinafter referred to in this section as the transporter) shall carry with him an invoice, bill or challan or any other document, by whatever name called, issued by the consignor of the goods giving such particulars as may be prescribed." 9. Section 29-A(11) of the Act provides as under - "If the check post officer is not so satisfied, he shall record his findings accordingly giving reasons therefor and he shall serve on the transporter a notice in writing requiring him to show cause, ordinarily within fifteen days of the service of the notice, why a penalty as specified on the notice, which shall be equal to three times the amount of tax which would have been payable if the goods, were sold within the State on the date of such seizure, should not be imposed upon him for the attempt made to facilitate the evasion of tax on such goods." 10. It is not the case that the transporter had not carried with him the documents as are particularised by section 29-CC of the Act. It is not stated that the same were not found "in order". It is also not alleged that these, on inspection, were not found to be legible, correct or complete. Section 29-A(4) required carrying of the stated documents. It is not stated that the same were not found "in order". It is also not alleged that these, on inspection, were not found to be legible, correct or complete. Section 29-A(4) required carrying of the stated documents. This does not entail any scrutiny with regard to "value" of the goods. It is only the absence of documents or incorrectness with reference to the goods being carried which may lead to the conclusion of the "attempt made to facilitate evasion of tax on such goods". The provision does not authorise to question the value of the goods, as contained in the documents, with reference to the market value as assumed, without any material or data. If such a power were to be read in the provision. This aspect should then be taken care of by other provisions until the provision under consideration is made comprehensive, definite and precise so as to cover the topic on which notice was issued. Proper construction, neither narrow nor liberal, does not permit the course the respondent chose to embark upon. 11. In [1991] 188 ITR 247 (SC); AIR 1991 SC 464 (Income-tax Officer v. Biju Patnaik), albeit with reference to the provision of other Act, it is succinctly ruled that "conditions" as prescribed, must exist for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the relevant provision. In the instant case, periphery is indicated by section 29-CC of the Act and it is not suggested that the transporter committed any lapse as envisaged. 12. The illation is that once on inspection it was found that the vehicle had all the documents, legible, complete and correct and thus, in order, as are required under the law, no occasion arose for seizure of the vehicle/goods or for initiation of proceedings by the impugned notice or proposal for penalty in terms of section 29-A(11) of the Act. True it is that a notice could be discharged in terms of section 29-A(12) of the Act, but then this presupposes a valid notice. Here I find that invalidity of notice and illegality of the action are writ large justifying quashment rather than discharge. 13. All authorities are required to act within the limits of their powers. Overstepping is not permissible. Law is not so petrified as to stay unresponsive where any person is found forced to face such proceedings. 14. Here I find that invalidity of notice and illegality of the action are writ large justifying quashment rather than discharge. 13. All authorities are required to act within the limits of their powers. Overstepping is not permissible. Law is not so petrified as to stay unresponsive where any person is found forced to face such proceedings. 14. In the result, I am satisfied that seizure (annexure P4) and notice (annexure P6) are without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, annexures P4 and P6 are quashed and all proceedings relating to penalty in pursuance thereof are incinerated. The goods/vehicle were released against undertaking on the strength of the orders of this Court. The undertaking as furnished, is accordingly cancelled. 15. This order shall, however, not preclude the respondents from taking action against the petitioners on the basis of difference in price if permitted under any other provision of law. 16. The petition thus, stands allowed with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.