JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by V. V. KAMAT, J. - This revision case relates to the proceedings under section 29A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (the KGST Act). At the outset it would be necessary that it is a statutory pre-condition that the proceedings required a foundational requisite that there is an attempt to evade tax under the KGST Act. It is on the basis of the above required satisfaction which is the statutory requirement under section 29A(4) of the Act, the subsequent consequence of imposition of penalty would get justification. 2. Undisputed facts are that on July 22, 1989, at the sales tax check post, Karukutty, which is on the way from Ernakulam to Coimbatore a tempo No. TCC6522 was intercepted to find 750 laminated sheets of value at Rs. 92,306.25. This was the occasion for issuance of notice. The contents of the notice would show what was found and what according to the department was lacking. What was found is available as follows : "The Bill No. 103 dated July 17, 1989 of M/s. Meghdev Enterprises, Wadhwan city, Surendra Nagar, for transport of 750 Nos. laminated sheets for Rs. 92,306.25 is addressed to M/s. Jay Trading Corporation, Oppankara Street, Coimbatore." It is contended that there is no document as per the KGST Rules for transport of the goods in tempo No. TCC6522 for transport of the goods from Ernakulam to Coimbatore, and as such the transportation of the goods is suspected for evasion of tax under the KGST Act. 3. Thus from the text of the notice itself it would be seen that Bill No. 103 dated July 17, 1989 of Messrs. Meghdev Enterprises, Wadhwan City, Surendra Nagar, Gujarat State, would show support for transport of 750 Nos. of laminated sheets for Rs. 92,306.25 is addressed as consignment to Messrs. Jay Trading Corporation, Oppankara Street, Coimbatore. 4. In reply to the above notice, as to be found from the summary of it in the order of the Sales Tax Officer (Enquiry) it would be seen that the petitioner-assessee is a registered dealer in laminated sheets on the rolls of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Oppankara Street, Coimbatore. Messrs. Jay Trading Corporation, Oppankara Street, Coimbatore. 4. In reply to the above notice, as to be found from the summary of it in the order of the Sales Tax Officer (Enquiry) it would be seen that the petitioner-assessee is a registered dealer in laminated sheets on the rolls of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Oppankara Street, Coimbatore. Messrs. Meghdev Enterprises, Wadhwan city, Surendra Nagar, Gujarat, consigned 750 laminated sheets initially through the common carrier in lorry No. CRK7775 supported by the necessary declaration in form No 45A under the provisions of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, accompanied by a delivery slip of Messrs. Meghdev Enterprises, No. 103 dated July 17, 1989. It is stated further that the above lorry No. CRK7775 also carried 2,400 laminated sheets with consignor shown as Messrs. Mica Sales Corporation, T.D. Road, Ernakulam. This consignment of 2,400 sheets was at the top whereas 750 sheets - the subject-matter of the present proceedings - were at the bottom of the lorry. It is further stated that the driver took the lorry first to Ernakulam and unloaded 2,400 sheets. When the lorry reached Ernakulam it developed some mechanical trouble and therefore after handing over delivery of 2,400 laminated sheets at Ernakulam, tempo No. TCC6522 was engaged for the purpose of onward delivery of 750 sheets at Coimbatore. It is pleaded that a certificate from the common carriers - Messrs. Asha Roadlines, Ahmedabad, accompanied by the statement of the driver was also produced. In addition thereto it is contended that the relevant register evidencing delivery slip No. 103 dated July 17, 1989, showing the seal of the sales tax check-post, is also produced. 5. The Sales Tax Officer by the order dated November 10, 1989, found the material as not reliable and convincing and expected production of documents under the KGST Act. The officer straightway proceeded to the satisfaction level that there was in attempt of evasion of tax. 6. The first appellate authority (Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner) considered the matter by the order dated April 5, 1991. The appellate authority accepted the situation that the lorry No. CRK7775 carried 2,400 laminated sheets consigned to Messrs. Mica Sales Corporation, T.D. Road, Ernakulam and a further fact that these sheets were on the top position of the said lorry as against 750 sheets - the subject-matter of the present proceedings - were at the bottom. The appellate authority accepted the situation that the lorry No. CRK7775 carried 2,400 laminated sheets consigned to Messrs. Mica Sales Corporation, T.D. Road, Ernakulam and a further fact that these sheets were on the top position of the said lorry as against 750 sheets - the subject-matter of the present proceedings - were at the bottom. It is also further accepted that 2,400 laminated sheets were unloaded from the lorry for Messrs. Mica Sales Corporation, Ernakulam. It would also be further seen that thereafter the driver of the said lorry - CRK7775 arranged a tempo No. TCC6522 for further onward delivery of 750 sheets at Coimbatore. Further accepting these factual positions the appellate authority observed that when a consignment in transported within the State or beyond the notified area of a check-post it is duty of the driver or the person in-charge of the goods to produce the relevant documents. The appellate authority considers the relevant documents to be one under the KGST Act. Accordingly the action was justified. 7. The Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal considered the situation in the same manner by its order dated October 8, 1992. In fact we will have to observe that the Tribunal dealt with the situation rather in a cryptic way. The reasoning is available in just five lines in the following manner : "We heard both sides. The reason for the transporting 750 laminated sheets from Ernakulam to Coimbatore without any records prescribed under the KGST Act and Rules itself is sufficient for demand of security by the Check Post Inspector. The petitioner also failed to convince the Enquiry Officer the genuineness of this transport. So naturally he converted security towards penalty." All that we can observe is that if this is the manner in which the matters are dealt with, less said is better and what we have observed is sufficient at this stage. 8. In our judgment the facts found and kept undisturbed do not spell out any requirement of a document under the KGST Act, 1963. We have already spelt out the contents of the bill No. 103 dated July 17, 1989. We have already pinpointed the fact that 2,400 laminated sheets consigned were delivered to Messrs. Mica Sales Corporation, T.D. Road, Ernakulam and it was thereafter 750 sheets started its travel from Ernakulam to Coimbatore for an interception at Karukutty. We have already spelt out the contents of the bill No. 103 dated July 17, 1989. We have already pinpointed the fact that 2,400 laminated sheets consigned were delivered to Messrs. Mica Sales Corporation, T.D. Road, Ernakulam and it was thereafter 750 sheets started its travel from Ernakulam to Coimbatore for an interception at Karukutty. The material that floats on the surface of the record shows that the consignor is one Messrs. Meghdev Enterprises, Wadhwan city, Surendra Nagar. With regard to both the consignments the first one was of 2,400 laminated sheets to be delivered at Ernakulam as stated above and the second was of 750 sheets to be delivered at Coimbatore, also as stated above. The situation is crystal clear that there is no question of liability under the KGST Act, 1963 in regard to both the consignments. In our judgment the facts floating on the surface of the record spell out a situation of innocence. It is also strengthened from two factors, appearing from the material placed before the Appellate Tribunal, to the effect that Messrs. New Asha Road Lines, Ahmedabad, have issued a certificate accompanied by a letter of the lorry driver of the common carrier No. CRK7775 and secondly the situation showing that the receipt of 750 sheets are duly accounted in the account books of the revision-petitioner, correspondingly showing that necessary declaration in form No. 7 along with the sale note is also issued to the consignor, Messrs. Meghdev Enterprises, Wadhwan city, Surendra Nagar, Gujarat. 9. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances we have no hesitation that the material on record shows no iota of evidence with regard to the statutorily required finding under section 29A(4) of the KGST Act, 1963 that there is any attempt to evade the tax. In our judgment the material shows innocence floating on the surface. For the above reasons revision case succeeds. All the three orders get quashed and set aside and consequently the amount of security deposit of Rs. 39,230 realised from the petitioner-assessee as per receipt No. 177394 dated July 23, 1989 is ordered to be refunded forthwith on or before May 31, 1996 with a further direction that on failure of compliance the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from June 1, 1996 till the date of payment. Petition allowed.