JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by V. V. KAMAT, J. - In exercise of the powers under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the relevant rule thereunder, the careful and cautious consideration of the material consistently by the three authorities below has its own effect on the limits of exercise of the said jurisdiction. 2. The proceedings before us were initiated under section 29A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. 3. The short matrix will show that on December 10, 1987 coconut oil weighing 28.50 quintals sent by the petitioner to a trader in the name and style of "M/s. Ani Traders", Inchivila in Thiruvananthapuram in motor vehicle No. KRO 9329 was intercepted at a place at the southern border of the State. Under the provisions of the Act they were released and then the connected record came to be forwarded under section 29A(4) of the Act to the Sales Tax Officer and by the order (annexure A dated January 25, 1989) the security amount of Rs. 10,800 collected towards the release of the articles is ordered to be the amount of penalty and consequential order of attachment is passed. 4. In reaching this conclusion the Intelligence Officer considered certain factors such as the seller had not issued the sale bill, that Inchivila is in the southern border of the State creating a reasonable belief required under the said statutory provision. The contention of the petitioner that the sale bill was not issued at the time of transporting the goods was rejected and the consequent contention that what was noted in the delivery note was only the approximate value also came to be obviously rejected. Left to ourselves, taking the ordinary course of business in such transactions, non-issuance of sale bill at the time of loading of the goods for transport cannot stand to the test of probabilities. The further contention that the actual quantity and value was ascertained only when the goods reached the consignee at the stated destination, which is rejected by the Intelligence Officer, is also against the test of probabilities. 5. The authorities also have found that the transaction is noted in the books after the goods came to be intercepted. The consistent finding is that the goods were not transported for sale on the basis of examination of the documents on record. 5. The authorities also have found that the transaction is noted in the books after the goods came to be intercepted. The consistent finding is that the goods were not transported for sale on the basis of examination of the documents on record. It is also emphasised that the accounting of the transaction in the books of accounts is seen to have been made and entered after a case had been booked in regard to the consignment which also was considered as a point not in favour of the dealer. 6. The first appellate authority also considered the question. The said authority also gave much importance and rightly so to the situation that the sale was effected after ascertaining the quantity of oil sold and also fixing the value thereof thereafter as an unacceptable one. The appellate authority also gave proper importance to the contention that the delivery note was irrecoverably lost as unbelievable. The authority has also additionally emphasised that the case of loss of delivery note book was not placed before the inspecting authority at the time of interception and even at subsequent time relating to remittance of security dposit and therefore is in the nature of an afterthought, 7. The situation did not get any dent when the proceedings were taken up before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal also referred to the provisions of rule 32(17) with regard to the contention that the sale bill is not required to accompany the transport. The Tribunal has considered that there is no material on record to prove that the sale was effected from a wholesale dealer to a retailer and has observed in this connection that even though column V(a) of the delivery note requires furnishing of details of bill numbers and date in case of sale, such requirements were found conspicuous by absence in the duplicate delivery note. The Tribunal has also found that neither the original nor even the triplicate copy of the delivery note is tendered on record and in regard thereto the explanation that it is lost irrecoverably is also not convincing. 8. We find that all the authorities have consistently and rightly taken the view that this is not a transaction of sale. For the above reasons the tax revision case stands dismissed at the stage of admission. Petition dismissed.