JUDGMENT M. Ramachandran, J. 1. Ext. P3 issued by the Sales Tax Inspector, Chittoor is under challenge, being a notice issued under S.29A(14) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. It is admitted that a consignment of grocery articles had been intercepted by the officer, on 26.2.2001, while being carried by vehicle No. TN65A/2293. The documents showed the goods as consigned by Sree Sai Stores, Kanakampara of Palakkad District to trader at Kecheri, Thrissur. The interception is admitted, and the petitioner had submitted that it was a case wherein the goods were to be released after collecting security as envisaged under S.29A(2) of the Act. By an interim order, the onions which were being carried, being not taxable, had been directed to be released. The question is whether there was justification on the part of the Department in proceeding with confiscation under S.29A(14) of the Act. 2. The report showed physical variations from the details given by the bills accompanying them. The driver admitted that the loading had been done at Pollachi, Tamil Nadu, and he had chosen a route, circumventing the check post as per instructions. 3. Sri. N. Muraleedharan Nair, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the interception amounted to violation of rights envisaged under Art.301 of the Constitution. He also submitted that the statement of the driver was procured under threat, and there was no bogus documents, as the petitioner was a registered dealer and even if there was violation, it justified only imposition of penalty and no other proceedings. 4. It appears that the respondent had made detailed advertence to the claims of the petitioner. The effort made appears to be commendable. He had recorded that the bills dated 26.2.2001 appeared to be bogus. Notice was being issued in the aforesaid circumstances. An opportunity for hearing was also offered to be given. 5. On behalf of the respondents, a statement has been filed, and it is pointed out that the petitioner though had got registered as a dealer was nevertheless, erratic in the matter of submission of returns, and whatever returns submitted, were prima facie irregular. There was no transaction in the address given in the registration certificate, and goods had not come through the check post to Kanakkampara. A few weeks before the present interception, there was another illegal entry of goods attempted and penalty had been imposed on the dealer. There was no transaction in the address given in the registration certificate, and goods had not come through the check post to Kanakkampara. A few weeks before the present interception, there was another illegal entry of goods attempted and penalty had been imposed on the dealer. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated for cancelling the registration. But the notice was returned for want of service and the registration had been cancelled on 24.2.2001. The proceedings were proposed against her in the aforesaid circumstances. Petitioner however submitted that she was unaware of any such proceedings. 6. S.29A(14) had been brought into the statute book by Act 8/2000 from 21.3.2000. This was to plug the loop holes of the law, as there was no effective provision to deal with the case of bogus bills which accompanied goods, facilitating unaccounted dealings. The existing provisions in the law for imposition of additional tax and penalty were not found sufficient enough to effectively stop clandestine transactions. Invocation of powers under S.29A(14) is justified when an Officer finds that the goods under transport are in bogus names, or unidentifiable persons or under cover of bogus documents. In the statement filed, it is pointed out that when bills issued by the petitioner, when compared with monthly returns, showed variations. It is further averred as following: "4. In addition to the above discrepancies, it was seen that the colour, type sets and printing differed considerably in the bills recovered leading to the obvious presumption that more than one set of bills having the same serial number were being used. This presumption is fortified by the fact that two sale bills with the same serial No. 105 were recovered. The first of these bills issued on 25.8.2000 was to a purchaser in Perumbavoor for the sale of dry chillies, toor dhall, orid dhall and ragi while the second bill issued on 25.10.2000 to a Purchaser in Kodungalloor was for the sale of 50 bags of groundnut seed. 5. When the above facts came to the notice of the assessing authority, he began to make further enquiries. Kanakkampara is a little village near the interstate border and grocery articles are not readily available in the vicinity. They have to be procured from Pollachi in Tamil Nadu. However, Smt. Rajini had not transported any goods through the Sales Tax Check Post, Gopalapuram which lies between Pollachi and Kanakkampara. Kanakkampara is a little village near the interstate border and grocery articles are not readily available in the vicinity. They have to be procured from Pollachi in Tamil Nadu. However, Smt. Rajini had not transported any goods through the Sales Tax Check Post, Gopalapuram which lies between Pollachi and Kanakkampara. In fact there were not entries in any of the regular interstate border Check Posts relating to movements of goods to 'Sree Sai Store' from outside the State. When the assessing officer made further enquiries at Kanakkampara, he came to know that in fact the so called 'Sree Sai Store' never remained open, that no goods were ever stocked there and that no sort of business was conducted from there". As pointed out by the Government Pleader, Ext. P3 is the notice, and the officer was justified in prima facie coming to the conclusion as had been arrived at. Though R.34A has only been marginally modified so as to include the sale that may follow proceedings under 29A(14), it is essential that opportunity be given to the assessee to explain the incriminating circumstances that is found against him. Ext. P3 shows that further opportunity has been offered to substantiate the stand of the petitioner. It is for her to utilise the opportunity. I direct that the proceedings should not be pre decided, and any action could be taken only after giving full opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings for urging her view point, and after facilitating production of material evidence. It will be in the petitioner's interest to cooperate with the proceedings as some of the items are perishable in nature. I hold that there is no inherent defect in the procedure followed and no interference with the proceedings is called for. The Original Petition is dismissed.