JUDGMENT G. SIVARAJAN, J. – The respondents in O.P. No. 36841 of 2001 are the appellants. They are officials of the Sales Tax Department. The respondent herein is an assessee to sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, "the Act"). He has filed the original petition challenging exhibits P1, P1(a), P4, P4(a) and P4(b) notices issued by the first appellant under section 29-A(2) of the Act. As per an interim order passed in this case, the respondent got release of the goods detained as per the impugned notices. Later the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the detention of the goods under section 29-A for the alleged suppression in freight charges is not justified. According to the learned single Judge the remedy available to the appellants is provided under section 28-A of the Act. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submits that the learned single Judge was not justified in holding that section 29-A of the Act is not available for the appellants to detain the vehicle and the goods if they suspect evasion of tax on the ground of undervaluation. The Government Pleader in support of his contention relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. P.T. Enterprises [2000] 117 STC 315 and also the decision of this Court in T. S. Jogi v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) (2000) 8 KTR 245 (Ker.). Shri Harisankar V. Menon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent also fairly submits that the question as to whether the check-post authorities are entitled to detain the goods on the ground of undervaluation has been answered by the Supreme Court in the affirmative in the latest decision in Shahnas Trading Co. v. State of Kerala [2002] 127 STC 1. The counsel however, submitted that when the respondent had asserted before the check-post authorities by filing objection to the notice that the freight shown in the documents accompanying the transport of goods represents the actual freight and in the absence of any positive materials regarding the freight payable or paid the appropriate course for the appellants were only to proceed against the respondent under section 28-A of the Act for which the respondent has no objection. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly the first and second appellants had issued notices under section 29-A of the. Act alleging undervaluation of freight charges. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly the first and second appellants had issued notices under section 29-A of the. Act alleging undervaluation of freight charges. The case of the respondent is that freight shown in the documents accompanying the transport of goods are the actuals and the remedy open to the appellants is to invoke the power under section 28-A of the Act. This is the view taken by the learned single Judge also. A division Bench of this Court in S.B. Supari Centre v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Thrissur (judgment dated September 10, 1998 ([2002] 127 STC 1 at page 2 (Ker.)). in W.A. No. 1065 of 1997 and connected cases) considered the question whether the check-post authority is entitled to detain goods on the ground of undervaluation under section 29-A(2) of the Act. It was held that section 29-A(2) can be invoked by the check-post authority while the goods are in transit if the check-post authority, prima facie, believe from the undervaluation of the goods that the same was done with a view to evade the payment of tax. In other words, undervaluation of the goods and a consequent attempt to evade the tax are the twin requirements for detention of the goods on the ground of undervaluation under section 29-A of the Act. The Supreme Court in Shahnas Trading Co. v. State of Kerala [2002] 127 STC 1, has affirmed the said decision and held that the power of the check-post officer under section 29-A of the Act is not merely to verify the documents required by sub-section (2) of section 29 to be in the possession of the person transporting the goods, but is to satisfy himself that there is no evasion of tax. In T. S. Jogi v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) (2000) 8 KTR 245 (Ker.) also a division Bench of this Court held that under section 29-A(2) of the Act goods can be detained if the check-post officer has reason to suspect that there is an attempt to evade payment of tax, from undervaluation of goods and that the same was done with a view to evade the payment of tax. This view is reiterated in Ashraf v. State of Kerala (1999) 7 KTR 124. This view is reiterated in Ashraf v. State of Kerala (1999) 7 KTR 124. In the light of these decisions we are of the view that the learned single Judge was not justified in cancelling the notices exhibits P1 series and P4 series issued by the first and second respondents. We accordingly set aside judgment of the learned single Judge and restore the notices exhibits P1 series and P4 series issued under section 29-A(2) of the Act. In this context it is relevant to refer to the provisions of section 28-A of the Act. The said section reads as follows : "28-A. Purchase of goods to prevent undervaluation. - (1) The assessing authority or any other officer empowered in this behalf by the Government who is satisfied that any dealer with a view to evade payment of tax, shows in his accounts, sale or purchase of any goods at prices lower than the prevailing market price of such goods, shall have the power to purchase such goods at a price at ten per cent above the purchase value or the value disclosed by any principal or agent in the case of goods received on consignment basis plus transporting charges and entrust such goods for sale to the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited or Kerala State Marketing Federation Limited or to any such public distribution system. (2) Any person aggrieved by a decision taken by any officer under sub-section (1) may file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner within thirty days from the date of receipt, by him of the decision in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by a fee of one hundred rupees : Provided that the Deputy Commissioner may admit an application made after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if he is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period." From a bare reading of the section it is clear that the section deals with a different situation altogether, viz., the dealer with a view to evade payment of tax, shows in his accounts, sale or purchase of any goods at prices lower than the prevailing market value of such goods and the assessing authority or any other officer empowered in this behalf by the Government is satisfied of the same has got the power to purchase such goods at a price at 10 per cent above the purchase value or the value disclosed by any principal or agent in the case of goods received on consignment basis plus transporting charges. This provision according to us cannot be invoked by the check-post authorities in proceedings under section 29-A of the Act. The view taken by the learned single Judge to the contrary is also to be set aside. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and dismiss the writ petition. The first and second appellants are entitled to demand security from the respondent herein as demanded in the impugned notice. However, since the goods were ordered to be released without any security and since the respondent got release of the goods without furnishing security the appellants can obtain security bonds without sureties as contemplated under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 29-A as a special case and take steps for adjudicating the matter under section 29-A(4) of the Act without delay. The respondent will furnish security as directed above for the amounts specified in the notices exhibit P1 series and exhibit P4 series within two months. This writ appeal is disposed of as above. Writ appeal allowed.