JUDGMENT Kamat, J. 1. What is required to be considered as the most essential in the proceedings under S.29A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is the satisfaction as to whether there is or not evasion f tax. This is the running thread with reference to the provisions of all the sub-sections of the said statutory provision. S.29A(1) empowers officer of the Government to stop the vehicle and any person connected therewith for the purpose of satisfaction that there is no evasion of tax. This can be done by the concerned officer at any place. Thereafter, if such officer has reason to suspect that there are no proper and genuine documents, transport is an attempt to evade payment of tax due under the Act. Then, in that event, demand adequate security from the concerned person. S.29A(2A) foresees yet one more situation empowering to deal with the concerned vehicle or vessel in addition to the goods sought to be transported. This also requires satisfaction with regard to the attempt to evade payment of tax. In such a situation, the officer is also empowered to demand security with regard thereto. Depending on the nature of the goods, under S.29A(2B) of the Act, the officer is also permitted to allow the goods to be transported subject to the conditions thereof. The provisions undoubtedly require satisfaction of the concerned officer at various stages sufficient to provide him reason that there is no evasion of tax. In regard to this situation, S.29A(3) and (4) contemplate the conduct of an enquiry on the basis of affording an opportunity to the person concerned. This is specified in sufficient details in the above provisions. The said statutory provisions, now under consideration, imply as a result of the required provision for affording opportunity, inevitably the consideration of the material placed by such person in answer in regard thereto. 2. In the process of the conduct of the said enquiry contemplated by the statutory provision of S.29A of the Act, the party facing has to satisfy the adjudicating authority that there is no attempt to evade tax and this he can obviously do by producing necessary documents. It is implicit therefore that the adjudicating authority is under an obligation to consider the reply and supported by documents, if any, and it is only thereafter that the adjudicating order has to be passed. It is implicit therefore that the adjudicating authority is under an obligation to consider the reply and supported by documents, if any, and it is only thereafter that the adjudicating order has to be passed. This is obviously referring to the material other than the material found accompanying the transport of goods. Therefore, it may be that at the time of the interception of the transport of goods, there may or may not be the required documents with the transporter or driver concerned, in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Even in this situation, the very language of the statutory provision of S.29A(1) of the Act would show that after stopping the vehicle, the authority is concerned with the act of stopping the vehicle and to seek satisfaction that there is no evasion of tax. Therefore, even if the documents required by the provisions of the Act may not be in possession of the concerned person, the officer empowered to stop the vehicle is not free not to look at the documents which are with the concerned person and produced before such officer. The statutory provision requires satisfaction on the basis of the material that there is an attempt at evasion of tax. Perhaps the material with the concerned person may reveal the other side of the situation, even though the documents required statutorily may not be with him. If the provision of the statute requires satisfaction that there is no evasion of tax, it is not that such satisfaction gets confined only to production of the statutorily required documents, but it certainly travels beyond and requires the concerned officer to look into other documents produced by the concerned person on interception. 3. There is yet another aspect. The statutory provisions of S.29A deal with the conduct of an enquiry requiring the adjudicating authority to afford an opportunity to the person being adjudicated. There is a reply and it is possible that the reply is accompanied by documents. It may be that even thereafter certain additional documents may be placed on record on his behalf. The statutory provisions of S.29A deal with the conduct of an enquiry requiring the adjudicating authority to afford an opportunity to the person being adjudicated. There is a reply and it is possible that the reply is accompanied by documents. It may be that even thereafter certain additional documents may be placed on record on his behalf. Even during the course of the enquiry, this statutory duty to reach satisfaction and consequent record of the finding in regard thereto that there is evasion of tax cannot absolve even the adjudicating authority from being satisfied that the required documents according to the statute were not with the person at the time of stoppage. The adjudicating authority has to satisfy on the basis of the material produced on the record of the enquiry that there evasion of tax or absence of material in regard thereto. At the two stages, an attitude of contentment with the situation that the statutorily required documents are not there, as enough to jump to the conclusion of evasion of tax, could only be understood as a 'leap in the dark' in terms of logic. This leap in the dark, especially by a refusal to look at any other material, creates a situation of unjustifiability of the adjudicating order much more so when it gets a stamp of endorsement by the appellate ' authorities in the same approach. 4. With regard to the requirements in the context in relation to the adjudication enquiry, this Court 1996 KLJ (Tax Gases) 259 = 102 STC 448 Sunitha Diesel Sales and Service v. State of Kerala. of which one of us-myself was a partner) declared the basic proposition as a jurisdictional requirement. If there is no attempt to evade tax, the penalty cannot be imposed under S.29A. By producing necessary documents, if the concerned authority satisfies the adjudicating authority that there is no attempt to evade tax, it would be more than sufficient. The adjudicating authority is legally duty bound to consider all documents produced before it before passing orders. Bare reading of the provisions of S.29A, in particular sub-sections (3) and (4) thereof, clearly show that the concerned party is required to satisfy that there is no attempt at evasion of tax by producing necessary documents. 5. The adjudicating authority is legally duty bound to consider all documents produced before it before passing orders. Bare reading of the provisions of S.29A, in particular sub-sections (3) and (4) thereof, clearly show that the concerned party is required to satisfy that there is no attempt at evasion of tax by producing necessary documents. 5. Therefore, not only the officer empowered to stop the vehicle gets confined to finding out as to whether there is no evasion of tax only to the situation that the goods under transport are not covered by proper and genuine documents as required under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, but becomes duty bound to be concerned with the material that is with such person, all taken together as inevitable and necessary one to reach satisfaction in the context of the question of evasion of tax. It would then follow that this legal duty and statutory obligation would also understood to travel as the requisite of the adjudicating authority in regard to the enquiry as well as the concerned officer with regard to other aspects in regard to which the said concerned officer gets empowered by virtue of S.29A(2A) and (2B) of the Act. In other words, at every stage, the scope of consideration and / or enquiry cannot be understood to get confined to the perusal of the documents required under the statutory provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, but also the documents that are with such person at the time" of interception and also the documents and the material placed during the course of the adjudication enquiry thereafter. This is really necessary because by virtue of S.29A, certain powers are conferred so much so that the vehicle can be stopped at any place when so required by any officer, further empowering the situation of expecting security, proceeding with the confiscation not only of the goods but also of the vehicle in question, even to the extent of permitting further transport after realising the amount of tax in respect of the goods transported. These various powers get centered around the situation that the concerned officer is satisfied, satisfied not with regard to the absence of documents as required under the Act, but the requirement of satisfaction is with regard to the evasion of tax. These various powers get centered around the situation that the concerned officer is satisfied, satisfied not with regard to the absence of documents as required under the Act, but the requirement of satisfaction is with regard to the evasion of tax. Had it been the stage of satisfaction confined to documents required under the Act, the consequence would not have been reaching upto the level of confiscation, demand of security and other situations. Considering the statutory provisions discussed above, all these powers are statutorily conferred on the officer empowered by the Government because the such officer has to be concerned with the satisfaction that there is no evasion of tax. Such satisfaction, therefore, should not be allowed to be confined to a limited situation that the required documents are not available at the time of interception if there is another material to shake that satisfaction in the matter of evasion of tax. 6. Apart from the above referred observations of this Court earlier, we get additional fortification in yet another decision of this Court 1994 KLJ (Tax Cases) 477 K.G. Thommen v. State of Kerala. It is observed in this connection that if the goods are not covered by proper and genuine documents although it is open to an officer to detain the goods which are under transport, the officer does not get absolved with reference to the satisfaction that he must have reason to suspect that there is an attempt to evade payment of sales tax. In this connection, it is emphasised that mere fact that the transport of goods was not accompanied by proper documents by itself will not be sufficient to attract levy of penalty under S.29A (4) of the Act. The finding as regards the attempt at evasion has to be based on consideration of the material on record. 7. In fact, this is what has happened in the present revision proceedings. The proceedings are initiated on the basis of notice dated May 11, 1983 and it would be seen that the petitioner is directed to produce all documents to establish that the goods are transported in accordance with the provisions of law. The staring feature in this connection is that the most important statutory requirement relating to the satisfaction that there is evasion of tax is conspicuous by its absence. 8. The staring feature in this connection is that the most important statutory requirement relating to the satisfaction that there is evasion of tax is conspicuous by its absence. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us copies of all the documents, not only that were with the person at the point of stoppage and / or detection, but also those that were placed on record during the course of the adjudication enquiry. 9. The petitioner is a manufacturer of wire ropes and as such, an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. An order for supply of 50 MT of high carbon steel wire rods was placed with M/s Special Steels Ltd., Wire Rod Mill, MIDC Area, Boisar-401 506 by its Bombay office. In pursuance of the said order, the supplier despatched the commodity in five trucks MEG 5453, KRE 9774, KLH 4203, KLO 7903 and KLG 4145. This was on two consecutive days April 22 and 23, 1983. The Sales Tax Inspector-in-charge of the Check Post at Manjeswar in regard to four trucks therefrom (except KRE 9774) found that they were not having the required documents as prescribed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The goods were detained. The security deposit at twice the amount of tax due was furnished by the consignee and in accordance with the provisions of S.29A of the Act, the goods were allowed to be transported. The enquiry in regard thereto was conducted by the Sales Tax Officer (Enquiry), Kasaragod. By the order dated August 19, 1985, the Enquiry Officer as regards each of the trucks converted the amount of security deposits as penalty. That the required documents as prescribed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 were not with the transporters was not disputed. It was submitted that the inter state purchase of the goods in these cases was properly supported by issue of G Forms. The absence of proper documents was sought to be explained on the ground that the goods were loaded from Tarapur (the manufacturing centre of the suppliers) and the carriers failed to collect the invoices from the administrative office of the suppliers situated at Brevali, which was purely an inadvertent omission and that there was no intention to evade payment of tax. 10. 10. Although the enquiry officer, in the adjudication order (Annexure A), had no resort to perhaps because of the summary nature of his approach from the contemporaneous undisputed record in the nature of the reply of the petitioner to the notice dated May 11, 1983 (supra), the material in the nature of contention is precisely available. The factual matrix is in the following form: "Our Bombay Office has placed an order for 50 metric tonnes of 5.5mm dia. High Carbon Steel Rods with M/s Special Steels Ltd., Dattapara Road, Borivali (East Bombay) vide that Office No. S.W.R/B.D./83/84, dated 21st April 1983. Accordingly, the party has despatched 32 coils of High Carbon Rods, weighing 20.380 M/T on 22nd April 1983 in two trucks (Truck Nos. MEG 5453 and KRE 9774) and 47 coils, weighing 30-120 M.T. on 23rd April 1983 in three trucks (Truck Nos. KLH 4203, KLO 7903 and KLG 4145) vide their Invoice No. 400503 dated 22nd April 1983 and No. 400511 dated 23rd April 1983 respectively. The relevant invoices are attached herewith for your perusal and return". It is thereafter there is a reference to the production of corresponding invoice and the reply is specifically as follows: "However, immediately after the detention of the goods at Manjeswaram Check Post, we have produced the corresponding invoices before the Check Post Inspector to convince him that there was no attempt to evade payment of tax due under KGST Act, 1963. But the Officer insisted security deposit for releasing the detained goods. Anticipating production loss for want of raw materials, we released the materials by paying the security deposit vide Receipt Nos. 21314 to 21317." Not only this, even payment of Central Sales Tax and the movement of the goods was a direct result of inter state purchase from a registered dealer for manufacturing purposes are also placed on record in the following terms: "You may please observe from the copy of invoices' that we have procured the material from M/s Special Steels Ltd Bombay by paying C.S.T. and the movement of the goods was a direct result of inter state purchase from a registered dealer for manufacturing purposes." 11. These contentions have not been touched at all in the three orders and, therefore, it will be necessary for us to deal with them with the help of the material on record. 12. These contentions have not been touched at all in the three orders and, therefore, it will be necessary for us to deal with them with the help of the material on record. 12. In the first instance what was found at the time of interception will have to be considered for the purpose of justification and further steps by the officer empowered by the Government in exercise of the powers under S.29A of the Act. There are delivery challans issued by the manufacturers--Special Steel Ltd., Wire Rod Mill, Boisar dated April 22 and 23, 1983, which were found with the transport drivers. With the help of the learned Government Pleader and the counsel for the petitioner, we have seen and we find that the reference to the four motor vehicles, to the commodity Wire rods Not only the quantity and weight thereof, but other particulars are also seen with regard to the commodity under transport. It is particular to note that even the gate pass numbers of the manufacturer's factory site are found in regard thereto. The other particulars amongst others show the consignee as well as the customer with particular reference to order number and date thereof. 13. Then there is the material which is produced in pursuance of the notice of enquiry in addition to the reply to the notice dated May 24, 1983, referred to earlier. These invoices are five in number with reference to the concerned transport vehicles, copies thereof are available in the paper book placed on record of this proceeding. These are the two invoices corresponding with the two challans referred to earlier. We have examined them and they correspond with all the contents of the challans which were in possession of the transport drivers and produced at the time of inspection. We have put these invoices dated April 22 and 23, 1983 to the learned Government Pleader and have assured ourselves with regard to their corresponding relationship with the challans referred to above. 14. Additionally there are consignment notes referring to all the five transport vehicles. These consignment notes obviously as are understood are given to the truck drivers by the transport carrier. It cannot be considered as coincidence that this consignment notes which were with the respective transport drivers go all in support of the contentions of the petitioner referred to above. They are dated April 22 and 23, 1983, respectively. These consignment notes obviously as are understood are given to the truck drivers by the transport carrier. It cannot be considered as coincidence that this consignment notes which were with the respective transport drivers go all in support of the contentions of the petitioner referred to above. They are dated April 22 and 23, 1983, respectively. Consigner is the manufacturer Special Steel Ltd., MIDC Area, Boisar and the consignee being M/s South India Wire Ropes Ltd., Edathala. The quantity mentioned therein also tallies with other documents and according to the established legal requirement, the transport carriers handed over these consignment notes to the truck drivers which were found with them. Their contents speak the same thing as emerging from the contents of other documents. 15. The above material leaves no manner of doubt that satisfaction could not be reached that there is evasion of tax and if there is no material in regard thereto, the consequent order of penalty would naturally fall to the ground. This has all arisen, in our judgment, because of the negative attitude with regard to the material on the basis of which not only the concerned officer, but also the adjudicating authority has to be satisfied that there is attempt at evasion of tax. The satisfaction and its contours have been circumscribed only to the fact that the documents required under the Act were not in possession of the persons concerned. In our judgment, the fact that the goods transported related to inter state sales obviously being transported from Tarapur areas, Boisar, the place of manufacturers, who acted on the basis of the placement of orders by the Bombay Office for supply to the consignees and in pursuance thereof, the consignment was entrusted to the transport carriers. It is unfortunate that these aspects received blind eyes of the three authorities. This is the feature apparent and floating on the face of the record, we have to say so. Illustratively, the very first initiation at the instance of the concerned officer is the notice dated April 25, 1983 issued contemperaneously. The contents of this notice show that the concerned officer was very much aware of the reputation of the transport company, not to talk of the manufacturers, the suppliers and the consignees. Illustratively, the very first initiation at the instance of the concerned officer is the notice dated April 25, 1983 issued contemperaneously. The contents of this notice show that the concerned officer was very much aware of the reputation of the transport company, not to talk of the manufacturers, the suppliers and the consignees. Even then, the last column of the tabulation of the said document records the reason for detention and this reason for detention shows that even the officer intercepting did not know the statutory reason for detention. The reason for detention, as mentioned in the said column, is "No records as per KGST Act". The only statutory reason for detention, as could be understood and subsequently justified, would be that there is reason to believe that there is likelihood of evasion of tax. Otherwise, there can be no other reason for detention of the transport. 16. Taking into consideration all these undisputed circumstances and giving conscientious and serious consideration because of the nature of the powers, in our judgment there is no material on record, we will have to particularise not only at the stage of interception, but also at the subsequent stage of the result of the adjudication enquiry of any attempt at evasion of tax. On the contrary, we find that at the initiation the fact that Central sales tax is paid and the movement of the goods was a direct result of the inter state purchase from a registered dealer for manufacturing purposes was placed on record. The material does not justify even the interception and in a situation where the officer intercepted was aware of the reputation of all parties concerned, the approach to proceed against the assessee in such a manner at least should have shown a slow motion character and not the one that is being displayed, to rush up to impose penalty which is more than unjustified. 17. For all the above reasons, the tax revision case succeeds and as a consequence, all the three orders got quashed and set aside. The Sales Tax Officer (Enquiry), Cannanore and all others through him are directed to refund the amount of penalty imposed with regard to the transport by Lorry Nos. MEG 5453, KLO 7903, KLG 4145 and KLH 4203 forthwith. Forthwith means, within a period of one month from the date of production of this judgment.