Judgment :- P. Shannmugham J. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, the act" ) and is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of essential oils at Cochin. In the course of his business he purchased four barrels of lemon-grass oil from M/s. K.V. Varghese, Tellicherry and consigned the same in lorry No. KLF-3487 on August 22,1987. The said transport was accompanied by a valid delivery note. The said lorry was intercepted by the Sales Tax Inspectoral Changanacherry on August 23,1987. The Sales Tax Officer issued a notice to the driver under Sec. 29A of the Act. On furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs. 16,500 being double the amount of the tax due on the value of the goods, the vehicle was released. A notice under Sec. 29 A of the Act was issued to the petitioner calling him to file objections, if any against the imposition of the penalty. In response to the notice, the petitioner himself appeared before the Sales Tax Officer and produced sale bill No. 141 dated August 22,1987 for Rs. 1,13,400 being the sale value of barrels of lemon-grass oil. However, the Sales Tax Officer held that the goods were intended to be transported from Tellicherry to Cochin and checking of the vehicle was conducted at Changanacherry. Therefore, if is beyond doubt that the goods found at Changanacherry were not the same as supported by the delivery note. Accordingly he imposed a penalty of Rs. 16,560 under Sec. 29A(4) of the Act. Against this order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Kottayam. By order dated May 13,1988 he confirmed the same. A second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed confirming the orders of the lower authorities. 2. Against these orders the following questions when raised for decision by this court: (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the findings of the Tribunal that there is no connection between the goods in transit and the records accompanying the goods sustainable? (2) Is not the order of the Tribunal vitiated in the absence of the findings to the effect that petitioner has attempted to evade the tax due under the Act? (2) Is not the order of the Tribunal vitiated in the absence of the findings to the effect that petitioner has attempted to evade the tax due under the Act? (3) Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has reason to suspect that the person transporting the goods "is attempting to evade payment" of tax due under the Act as contemplated under Sec. 29A(ii) of the Act? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that under law the incidence of levy for lemon-grass oil occurs at the last purchase point, did the assessee attempt evasion of payment of tax due under the Act so as to attract the provisions of Sec. 29A of the Act? (5) Whether, the finding, reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in the above case sustainable? 3. Sec. 29A(4) of the Act, enables the officer to impose on the owner of the goods a penalty not exceeding twice the amount of tax attempted to be evaded if he finds that there has been an attempt to evade the tax due under the Act. Rule 35A(4)(b) also says that there should be a finding by the officer there has been a attempt to evade payment of tax due under the Act on the transaction in pursuance of which the goods are transported. By a reading of these provisions it is abundantly clear that an opportunity should be given to the owner of the goods and there should be a finding that there has been an attempt to evade payment of tax due under the Act. On a reading of the Ciders passed by the authorities, we are unable to find any finding as contemplated under the Act. The Sales Tax Officer has proceeded to say that since the checking of the vehicle was conducted at Changanacherry it is beyond doubt that the goods were not supported by the delivery note. The Sales Tax Officer did not consider the explanation given by the driver in his statement dated August 24,1987 as to how the vehicle was found at Changanacherry. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Sales Appellate Tribunal have also committed the same error in not giving a clear finding on the alleged attempted evasion of tax. 4. The Sales Tax Officer did not consider the explanation given by the driver in his statement dated August 24,1987 as to how the vehicle was found at Changanacherry. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Sales Appellate Tribunal have also committed the same error in not giving a clear finding on the alleged attempted evasion of tax. 4. Learned counsel forthe petitioner in support of his contention stated that there should a specific finding before sec. 29A is invoked, by citing reported decisions in Gentle Joseph & Co. v. State of Kerala (1993) 89 STC 494 (Ker), McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. Sate Tax Officer (Enquiry), Kasaragod (1993) 91 STC 610 (Ker) and V. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1994) 92 STC 221 (Ker). We are in respectful agreement with the principles laid down in those decisions and we find that the orders. passed by the Tribunal are erroneous. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that evasion of payment of tax has not taken place since lemon-grass oil transported by him is only the first sale in the State and it is taxable at the point of last purchase in the State as per entry 72(a) in the 1st Schedule. Learned counsel also submitted that there is no attempt of evasion of tax as far as the transport of the goods is concerned. Therefore, in the light of what has been stated above, we find on hesitation in setting aside the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the orders passed in annexures B, C and D are quashed. The tax revision case is allowed, no order as to no costs.