Check-post detention requires concrete evidence of tax evasion, not mere non-registration or a bona fide taxability dispute.

Check-post detention under section 29A(2) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act is permissible only when the officer has concrete material to suspect that the transport lacks proper and genuine documents or is part of tax evasion. Mere non-registration of the consignee is insufficient. Where the goods were accompanied by required documents and there was a bona fide dispute about whether the underlying arrangement amounted to a taxable sale, the detention power could not be invoked on suspicion alone. In such circumstances, the detention and penalty were held unsustainable and the impugned order was liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether detention of goods and imposition of penalty under section 29A(2) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 were valid when the transport was supported by proper documents, the consignee was not a registered dealer, and there was a bona fide dispute whether the underlying transaction amounted to a taxable sale.

Analysis: The statutory power under section 29A(2) can be exercised only where the officer has reason to suspect that the transport is not covered by proper and genuine documents or that there is an attempt to evade payment of tax. Mere non-registration of the consignee, by itself, is not enough to justify detention at the check-post. The materials showed that the goods were accompanied by the requisite documents and that the petitioner's arrangement for printing and supplying telephone directories was not shown to involve a conventional sale for price by the Government of India. In the absence of concrete facts indicating evasion, and where there was a genuine controversy as to the very taxability of the transaction, the check-post authority could not invoke the detention power on mere suspicion. The order was therefore without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The detention and penalty were not sustainable under section 29A(2) and the impugned order was liable to be quashed in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The decision holds that check-post detention under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act cannot be used where the only basis is non-registration or an unresolved bona fide dispute on taxability, without concrete material showing an attempt to evade tax.

Ratio Decidendi: Power to detain goods in transit under section 29A(2) arises only on concrete material giving reason to suspect evasion of tax, and cannot be exercised where the transport is supported by proper documents and the dispute is genuinely about the existence of a taxable sale.

---