JUDGMENT A. K. PATNAIK, J. - In Civil Rule No. 3196 of 1994, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter dated August 6, 1994, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes of Dhubri Zone, Dhubri, to the Superintendent of Taxes, Damra checkpost, Srirampur, Assam, asking him to verify the documents of all vehicles carrying items such as cow, goat, pigs, etc., and bound for North-Eastern States and to enforce tax security by determining the value of the goods on the basis of current market price of such goods. And in Misc. Case No. 1327 of 1994, the petitioner has prayed for an interim order staying the said letter dated August 6, 1994, during the pendency of the writ application. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner carries on the business of selling livestock such as pigs, cows, ox, buffaloes, etc., and for the purpose of such business transports livestock from the States of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Assam and Meghalaya to Dimapur in Nagaland and supplies the same as per the terms and conditions of the permit issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland on yearly basis. In course of transportation of such livestock to Nagaland on trucks by the petitioner through the Srirampur Gate which is located near the border between West Bengal and Assam, the trucks are being intercepted by the respondents and call deposit against every such truck carrying livestock is being collected by the respondents from the petitioner. When the petitioner enquired as to why such call deposits are being taken from the petitioner, the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri Zone, produced before the petitioner a copy of the impugned letter dated August 6, 1994, whereunder the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, has directed the Superintendent of Taxes, Damra check-post, to collect security in respect of trucks carrying livestock through the check-gate. Aggrieved by the impugned letter dated August 6, 1994, of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri Zone, Dhubri, the petitioner has moved this Court for quashing the said letter dated August 6, 1994 and for directing the respondents not to realise call deposit from the petitioner and its agents in respect of vehicles carrying livestock pending disposal of the writ petition on the ground that under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 (for short, "the Act"), the respondents were not authorised to collect call deposit from the petitioner in respect of livestock being transported through the State of Assam for sale in Nagaland. 3. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been stated that during the period from August 7, 1994 to October 31, 1994, the petitioner has moved 516 truck loads of livestock mainly pig and cow through the Damra (Srirampur) check-post on the pretext that the goods are meant for sale outside the State of Assam. In respect of the said 516 truck loads of livestock, the petitioner has made call deposit of Rs. 11,98,000. At the exit check-post the petitioner returned transit passes in respect of 471 truck loads of livestock and was allowed to withdraw call deposit amounting to Rs. 10,93,000. Call deposit in respect of 3 truck loads of livestock valued at Rs. 6,000 was forfeited on account of failure of the petitioner to return the transit passes and the petitioner was to surrender 42 transit passes against call deposit of Rs. 99,000. In the affidavit-in-opposition, it has been further stated that under section 46(5)(b)(ii) of the Act, the respondent has the authority at the check-gate to demand security and hence the demand of security under the impugned letter dated August 6, 1994, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, to the Superintendent of Taxes, Damra Check-post, was authorised by the said section 46(5)(b)(ii) of the Act. It has been further stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the said letter dated August 6, 1994, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, to the Superintendent of Taxes, Damra check-post, has been issued in the interest of Revenue and such security is being realised with a view to prevent evasion of taxes. 4. When the matter was taken up for hearing on February 16, 1995. Mr. 4. When the matter was taken up for hearing on February 16, 1995. Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since the petitioner was not selling livestock inside the State of Assam and was transporting livestock from places outside the State of Assam through the State of Assam to the State of Nagaland for sale in Nagaland, the petitioner was not liable to any sales or purchase tax on such livestock under the Act and that the only provision of law which was applicable for such transportation of goods from outside the State of Assam and bound for any other place outside the State is sub-section (15) of section 46 of the Act which does not authorise collection of call deposit from the petitioner in respect of such transportation of goods from outside the State to any other place outside the State through the State of Assam. Mr. Goswami further stated that under sub-section (15) of section 46 of the Act, the petitioner is required to obtain transit passes in the prescribed form from the officer-incharge of the entry check-post and return the said transit passes to the officer-incharge of the exit check-post. Mr. Goswami vehemently submitted that under the Act and Rules made thereunder there is no provision whatsoever to demand call deposit or any other security at the entry check-post in respect of goods which are yet to enter the State of Assam. 5. Dr. Todi, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that under sub-section (4) of section 46 of the Act, the officer-in-charge of the check-post is authorised to detain any vehicle carrying goods and examine the contents in the goods vehicle and inspect the documents relating to the goods and in case he finds that tax payable under the Act in respect of sale or purchase of goods carried in the truck has not been paid or that the sale or purchase of goods carried in the vehicle has not been properly accounted for, under sub-section (5)(b) of section 46 of the Act, the officer-incharge of the check-post can insist on payment of such tax or security and thereafter release the goods in case the tax is paid or security is furnished. Dr. Dr. Todi, submitted that consistent with the said provision in sub-section (5) of section 46 of the Act, the impugned circular dated August 6, 1994, has been issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Dhubri, to the Superintendent of Taxes, Damra check-post, for demanding security in respect of trucks carrying livestock through the check-gate. Dr. Todi also submitted that the grounds produced before the court would show that the petitioner has not been able to account for some of the goods which were allowed to pass through Damra check-post earlier and it is for this reason that a call deposit is being taken from the petitioner in respect of every consignment passing through the check-post and the same is returned as soon as the goods are accounted for at the exit check-post by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned circular dated August 6, 1994, which has been issued solely in the interest of Revenue. 6. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned circular dated August 6, 1994, which has been issued solely in the interest of Revenue. 6. Sub-sections (5) and (15) of section 46 of the Act are quoted hereinbelow : "(5) If, on such examination and inspection, it appears - (a)(i) that the tax, if any payable under this Act, in respect of the sale or purchase of the goods carried has been paid; or (ii) that the sale or purchase of the goods carried has, for the purpose of payment of tax under this Act, been properly accounted for in the documents referred to in sub-section (7) and the declaration given was correct and complete to the satisfaction of the check-post officer, the said officer shall release the goods vehicle or boat with the goods carried; or (b)(i) that the tax, if any payable under this Act, in respect of the sale or purchase of the goods carried, has not been paid; or (ii) that the sale or purchase of the goods carried, for the purpose of payment of tax under this Act, has not been properly accounted for in the documents referred to in sub-section (7) or no correct and complete declaration is given in respect of goods carried and if the said officer is satisfied after making such enquiry as he deems fit that with a view to prevent the evasion of tax payable in respect of the sale or purchase of the goods carried, it is necessary to detain the goods, he shall detain the goods vehicle or boat or the consignment of the consignee to pay such tax, or to furnish adequate security in such form and in such manner and to such authority as may be prescribed, on behalf of the person liable to pay such tax." "(15) When a goods vehicle or boat coming from any place outside the State of Assam and bound for any other place outside the State and carrying the goods passes through the State, the driver or other person in-charge of such vehicle or boat shall apply to and obtain a transit pass in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed from the officer in-charge of the entry check-post or barrier after his entry into the State of Assam and deliver it to the officer in-charge of the exit check-post or barrier before his exit from the State or any other officer, as may be directed, failing which it shall be presumed that the goods carried thereby have been sold within the State by the owner or the person in-charge of the goods vehicle or boat. Where the goods carried by such goods vehicle or boat are after their entry into the State transported outside the State by any other goods vehicle or conveyance, the onus of proving that goods have actually moved out of the State shall be on the owner or person in charge of the goods vehicle or boat and all the provisions of this Act shall so far as may be applicable as if such transporter or carrier or the driver or other person in-charge of the vehicle were a dealer within the meaning of clause (10) of section 2." 7. A plain reading of sub-section (5)(b) would show that the provisions of sub-section (5)(b)(i) and the first limb of sub-section 5(b)(ii) apply only where there is already a sale or purchase of goods carried in the vehicle attracting tax under the Act and such tax has not been paid or such sale or purchase of goods for the purpose of tax under the Act has not been accounted for in the documents mentioned in sub-section (7) of section 46. It is not disputed by the respondents that the livestock are being transported by the petitioner from outside the State of Assam and the check-post at Damra is on the border of the State of West Bengal and the State of Assam. Hence when the livestock transported by the petitioner from outside the State of Assam passes through the check-post at Damra the taxable event, namely, sale or purchase of goods inside the State of Assam could not have possibly occurred and hence the question of liability for any sales tax or purchase tax under the Act at the entry check-post at Damra does not arise. Accordingly neither sub-section (5)(b)(i) nor the first limb of sub-section (5)(b)(ii) of section 46 of the Act on which reliance has been placed in the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents as well as Dr. Todi can be brought to action at the entry check-post. Accordingly neither sub-section (5)(b)(i) nor the first limb of sub-section (5)(b)(ii) of section 46 of the Act on which reliance has been placed in the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents as well as Dr. Todi can be brought to action at the entry check-post. There is, however, scope for invoking the provision of the second limb of sub-section (5)(b)(ii) even at the entry check-post, if no correct and complete declaration is given in respect of goods carried in the vehicle, and in such cases, the goods vehicle can be detained and adequate security can be demanded if on enquiry the officer-in-charge is satisfied that it is necessary to do so with a view to prevent evasion of tax. And a plain reading of subsection (15) of section 46 of the Act makes it clear that only transit passes in the prescribed form are required to be obtained in respect of such goods entering into the State of Assam from outside the State and bound for places outside the State of Assam before exit from the State failing which it shall be presumed that the goods carried have been sold within the State. The said sub-section (15) of section 46 of the Act does not provide for collection of security or call deposit at the entry check-post. Therefore, the collection of security in the form of call deposit at the entry check-post at Damra in respect of livestock carried in vehicles from places outside the State of Assam is not authorised either under sub-section (15) of section 46 or under sub-section (5) of section 46 of the Act except in cases where no correct or complete declaration is given in respect of such livestock carried and the officer-in-charge of the check-post on enquiry finds that with a view to prevent evasion of tax it is necessary to collect such security. 8. Hence, the impugned letter dated August 6, 1994, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Dhubri Zone, Dhubri, to the Superintendent of Taxes, Damra check-post, in so far as it instructs the Superintendent of Taxes, Damra check-post, to enforce tax security in respect of vehicles carrying livestock coming through the Damra check-post and bound for North-Eastern States even where the declaration given in respect of such livestock is correct and complete is not authorised by sub-section (5)(b)(ii) of section 46 of the Act as claimed by the respondents. Accordingly, the respondents are directed not to realise call deposit or other security from the petitioner in respect of livestock carried by the petitioner from places outside the State of Assam and entering into the State of Assam at the entry check-post at Damra in future except in cases where correct and complete declarations have not been given in the prescribed form in respect of such livestock and on enquiry the officer in-charge of the check-post is satisfied that to prevent evasion of tax it is necessary to collect such security. But it is made clear that in case such livestock transported through the State is not accounted for at the exit check-post the officer in-charge of such exit check-post will be within his authority to presume that the goods have been sold within the State of Assam in accordance with sub-section (15) of section 46 and demand and recover tax or security with regard to such livestock in accordance with sub-section (5) of section 46 with a view to prevent evasion of tax under the Act. The Civil Rule and Misc. case are accordingly disposed of. Petition disposed of accordingly.