S. SANKARASUBBAN, J. –

These original petitions are filed challenging the constitutional validity of section 30-C of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the KGST Act"). O.P. No. 98 of 1996 is treated as the main case.

There are three petitioners in the original petition. First petitioner is M/s. Gajanan Agencies, second petitioner is H. Sathish Kamath and the third petitioner is H. Anantha Kamath. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner is a partnership firm consisting of seven partners of whom Sathish Kamath is the managing partner. The firm carries on business in purchase and sales of rubber sheets. The business was commenced in 1987. The purchases are made from cultivators and growers of rubber as well as from plantations and the sales are made locally to various dealers. The first petitioner is a registered dealer in rubber under the KGST Act, 1963 and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

The turnover of rubber is taxable at the point of last purchase in the State by a dealer who is liable to tax under section 5, Schedule I of the KGST Act. The first petitioner's sales being to local dealers within the State, no tax is payable by the first petitioner on the purchase turnover of rubber. On December 27, 1995, the first petitioner purchased 9 tonnes of rubber sheets from cultivators and growers situated at Kandanje, Karimbala, Kadapana near Ethadkka, as per purchase bill Nos. 4434 to 4485 dated December 27, 1995 and was transporting the same to the first petitioner's business place in Kanhagad. The transportation was supported by delivery note in form No. 26 bearing serial No. AB 885105 dated December 27, 1995. The goods were being transported in lorry No. KL.14-5304 belonging to H. Anantha Kamath. A similar quantity of 9 tonnes, which was purchased as per purchase bill Nos. 4486 to 4537 dated December 27, 1995 from Chalakkode, Madathadkka, Bykunje in the Ethadkka area was also being transported as per delivery note No. AB 885106 dated July 22, 1995 and the copies of purchase bills referred to above in lorry No. KL 19-6114 belonging to H. Sathish Kamath. Thus, according to the first petitioner, the purchase and transportation of raw rubber sheets was in accordance with the provisions of sections 29 and 29-A of the KGST Act. Therefore, there was no irregularity in the transaction.

It appears that the two lorries carrying rubber sheets were intercepted and seized by the second respondent from Ethadkka road after midnight while these lorries were carrying the rubber sheets after purchase to the petitioners' business place at Kanhagad, on December 27, 1995 and entrusted to Badiadkka Police Station for safe custody. The first petitioner could understand from the drivers of the lorries, Janardhana and Ashokan that the second respondent obtained their signatures in some statements without disclosing their contents before taking the lorries into custody. Even though the copies of purchase bills and delivery notes were available in the vehicle at the time of checking, the second respondent was not inclined to verify these, but he was bent upon seizing the lorries and taking them into his custody. Before seizing the vehicles and goods, no notice was given to the petitioners. The seizure was also illegal as there were documents for transiting the rubber and it was accompanied by documents prescribed under the KGST Act.

The first petitioner came to know from the Sub-Inspector of Police, Badiadkka Police Station that action was taken under section 30-C of the KGST Act in respect of the goods transported in lorries KL 14-5304 and KL 19-6114 under section 30-C of the KGST Act alleging that the transportation was without records. This is clear from the letter sent by the second respondent to the Station House Officer, which is marked as exhibit P6. Since all relevant documents were available for transaction at the time of interception and checking of the vehicles by the second respondent,